Inexcusable Bad Designs
Inexcusable Bad Designs
(OP)
There are several interesting threads here, and in the engineering history forum, that prompt this new post.
In engineering history the seacrh is on for the greatest engineering achievements and the greatest failures.
In this thread we have questions about "What is safe?" and there is another thread in this forum about the ethics of limited designs in "Design and Supply".
Here I want to give an example of bad design which I feel is potentially dangerous and inexcusable and to deiscover other's opinions on this and any other examples.
I won't name a brand or model as this may be leading into a litigeous area. Here I wanted to explore the engineering reaction to bad design.
My example is the particular make and model of rotary lawn mower my elderly parents purchased. Low cost and widly available I think there is an inherent dange in these and other designs that, because of circumstances, may not leave the manufacturers legally liable. You will see what I mean, but will, I think see that here the law is an ass.
The worst of this is that there are good designs out there and there is over a century of mower design history to call upon, so there is no excuse for bad design.
This is not about ground breaking, envelope pushing design innovations that can occassionally go wrong but which, overall, are but one valuable learning experience on the path to better things.
Here we have a simple excercise in taking modern design aids, modern manufacturing and the benefits of mass production and the acculmulated years of experience which should produce an excellent product at a very affordable price.
That is the expectation.
It is not a case of "you get what you pay for" because in every endeavour engineers are delivering better designs and more capability for lower prices.
The expectation is justifiable.
This product confounds the expectations:
For example,
Where are the ethics in this? What engineer of any integrity can be party to such designs?
I wonder, just how many other inexcusable designs are there?
In engineering history the seacrh is on for the greatest engineering achievements and the greatest failures.
In this thread we have questions about "What is safe?" and there is another thread in this forum about the ethics of limited designs in "Design and Supply".
Here I want to give an example of bad design which I feel is potentially dangerous and inexcusable and to deiscover other's opinions on this and any other examples.
I won't name a brand or model as this may be leading into a litigeous area. Here I wanted to explore the engineering reaction to bad design.
My example is the particular make and model of rotary lawn mower my elderly parents purchased. Low cost and widly available I think there is an inherent dange in these and other designs that, because of circumstances, may not leave the manufacturers legally liable. You will see what I mean, but will, I think see that here the law is an ass.
The worst of this is that there are good designs out there and there is over a century of mower design history to call upon, so there is no excuse for bad design.
This is not about ground breaking, envelope pushing design innovations that can occassionally go wrong but which, overall, are but one valuable learning experience on the path to better things.
Here we have a simple excercise in taking modern design aids, modern manufacturing and the benefits of mass production and the acculmulated years of experience which should produce an excellent product at a very affordable price.
That is the expectation.
It is not a case of "you get what you pay for" because in every endeavour engineers are delivering better designs and more capability for lower prices.
The expectation is justifiable.
This product confounds the expectations:
For example,
- It has four wheels, all are outside the cutting path; you cannot mow verges except on a diagonal where one wheel floats in air.
- the path from the cutter to the grass collector is obstructed by several braces which presumably keep the mower deck walls from flexing: when the wind blows, or collapsing inwards due to the low pressure expected from the action of the cutter blade, if it moved fast enough, but which, because of the very low reving engine it doesn't; or simply from impact damage e.g. when struck by a foot (a real expectation due to the frustration created).
- The grass collector has vents in the bottom and sides but none in the top or back so the first collected cuttings block the air flow.
- The next cuttings block the throat. The collector requires emptying when only half full or less and the grass does not compact.
- It may be excellent on astro-turf or in the desert but on a moist english lawn grass that can grow an couple of inches in a week, forget it.
- OK, so when the first Japanese machines reached the UK they did discover serious problems with the cutters because their blade design was based on quite different low-silicate grasses, but that was decades ago.
- This grass collector can require emptying every ten to twenty feet or so and the throat needs clearing each time.
- it has a dead mans handle throttle so, after you've crippled yourself extracting the grass box from under the fixed rake handle bar, and discover there is no tumble home to the grass box such that half of the grass falls straight out onto the lawn as you remove it, the engine stops.
- The engine stop is supposed to be a safety feature but the frequent need to stop, empty the grass collector and clear the blocked throat means that it requires pull-cord staring every ten feet or so when used on some lawns.
The consequence is that operators simpley defeat the throttle safety with a piece of string, because the safety feature is childishly easy to defeat. - Operators now can be seen emptying the grass box and clearing the throat of the mower with the engine running.
Where are the ethics in this? What engineer of any integrity can be party to such designs?
I wonder, just how many other inexcusable designs are there?
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.





RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
www.tankindustry.com
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
You can't be an expert on everything. When buying consumer goods ask someone knowledgeable you trust, or read "Which" magazine or the like.
At a pinch ask someone who is using the relevant item.
An informed market is a much better evolver of designs than nanny state regulations.
As to ethics, I don't really think it comes into it. There is a segment of the market that will buy the cheapest, no matter what. In a free society that is their right.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
"Never hold a dime so close that you can't see the dollar behind it."
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Unforutnately, these types of designs will not go away only be replaced with a product from another company. I have never understood why a company would make an inferior product like this and expect to grow with the years. The only thing they can be thinking of is making as much money in the shortest amount of time and then bailing to start another trash company.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
I don't believe I said it was the cheapest, because it wasn't.
What I am talking about is poor design, not design to the $.
Sure, I could pay more for a mower with an electric starter. Or with power drive. That is a buying decsion.
And yes, a roller instead of one of the pairs of wheels would be preferable for edge cutting and may cost more.
So we have a pull cord push mower with 4 wheels. Not the cheapest.
So now tell me why it should cost more to have the wheel base narrower than the cutting path. Or even one pair of wheels so arranged and allowing maximum width on the other pair to accept a bigger cuttings box.
Tell me why it is more expensive to put the vent slots in the top rather than in the bottom.
Is it going to double the price?
The point is that for a given set of components, there seems to be a premium for having them put together in the best way.
It seems to me that some products are either badly designed because there is a lack of design skill or badly designed on purpose to extract a premium for a better design at a higher price but not necessarily at a higher cost.
Anyone who visits any of the consumer opinion sites will discover any number of products, brand names included, that fall far short of expectation, many costing more than rather more satsifactory products.
(visit www.epinions.com for some examples).
What I expect to see reflected in price difference is the features list.
"You get what you pay for" should mean you get the features you pay for and not for the fact that one is badly designed and another not.
I remember an occasion trying to buy an SLR camera where, when asked the difference between two cameras at different prices, the sales assistant replied "one's got more bits than the other". This bright assistant knew that price is about features, not quality (though I was otherwise unimpressed and bought my camera elsewhere). He didn't say "one is better than the other".
Some very good products are very cheap. They are designed well for a particular price market with a set of features to match.
Or maybe I don't understand the term "quality" the same as everyone else does?
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
It may be the if the vents were on the top, grass, dust, dirt or a rock could exit the vents and injure the operator.
It may be the wheels are place to the outer edges to give the mower the greatest stability again to avoid injuring the operator. Or to sell an edger product...
It may be the bag is designed to stop receiving material when a certain weight has accumulated, so the operator is not injured while removing the bag.
It may be the designer does not use the product...
Just my guesses
Hydrae
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
It sounds like a quality mower to me. Quality is how well something fits the specifications it was built or procured to.
It's been a while but in Quality College you learn such things as: Godiva and Hershey choclate candy are equal in quality. The Godiva has higer standards or specifications so it results in a better product. It doesn't have higher quality, just different requirements.
Things like horse crap can have high standards of quality. If I am particular about the horse manure I put on my roses I can specify tha I want manure from a clydsdale mare, that was feed 20% oats, 30% hay and 30% grass, and was collected on the east side of a hill before 9AM. It's still horse crap but it meets my standards of quality.
The mower your haveing trouble with probably met someones standards and specifications ( I'm sure it does a good job of cutting grass for someone, somewher.). It didn't meet yours. Did you have any? Not all lawnmowers are the same.
IF you don't know what you want then you have to want what you have.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Quality is in how well the designers are meeting the specification. But we are still not facing the issue.
Take a pair of lawn mowers built to different price standards and market specifications.
Of course they are different.
One has a smaller less powerful engine and has thinner material in the mower deck. The cutter doesn't last as long before it needs sharpening or replacing.
That's OK, it's going to be used to cut the a householders front lawn once a week.
If it were a bigger lawn maybe we need a bigger motor and power drive rather than push. Maybe we also pick one with a bigger capacity grass collector.
But now how about you take two equivalent lawnmowers, each costs the same and each sells for the same. One will always be better than the other in one respect or another but maybe worse in some other area.
This is how the designers have reached their design compromises.
If I was going to set up a garden maintenance business this would be the wrong choice. I would want one designed for a 40 hr working week and then some. I'd expect a good three years over which to epreciate the value.
You are absolutely correct to say that each represents quality of design, quality of manufacture and can each be said to be of as good a quality as a more expensive mower because it meets its ddeign specification well.
You want a Ferrari, buy a Ferrari. You want a for Kia, buy one. Each is equally able to claim to be quality.
But a low price may excuse Ford for not fitting a V12 trurbo charged engine. It would not excuse them for fitting defective tyres, or if the brakes failed after you've driven 5 miles.
But when you replace one life expired mower after 8 years with another visually similar and price similar and discover it is substantially inferior, are you saying that that is "quality?" Is progress that we see quality decline or improve? Are we getting better as engineers and designers? or worse?
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
The mower you bought might fit exactly the specifications of a user in Arizona with 40 square ft of dry grass that he cuts 14 times a year.
If you sold me a lawn mower it would be one I've see work in wet or damp grass. I would also buy it from a dealer with parts, and with a gaurentee.
tthe mower you bought didn't fit your specifications and and you shouldn't have bought it. If price was you sole specification you bought a mower that met that sepecification. Expecting a cheap mower to cut long wet grass may be to much to ask for. That is why Govida chocolate taste better than Hersheys.
Your mower is different from the one you bought 8 years ago because the manufacturer was probably forced to cut cost. They sold out on there name. IF you had a writtne specification for the one you bought 8 years ago would the new one meet the same specs, doesn't sound like it.
The analogy of Kias and Ferraris is just like the just like the chocolate. Equal quality in both, what you get depends on how you set your standards. Just want a car to get to work, buy the Kia, Want to leave 10 minutes late and get there 5 minutes early - spec out a Ferreri.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Keeping in mind that this is a forum for 'Professional Ethics in engineering', can we justify poor design on the basis that the consumer should recognise it himself, and buy accordingly?
There is a legitimate market for cheap rubbish, sometimes I buy cheap tools (if I'm likely to loose them before I'd wear them out!), but as professionals we can recognise the difference. Many consumers can't. I fully agree with Greg's point about getting advice to make informed decisions, but does this abrogate the designers of all responsibility?
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
It is funny how what have actually said seems to have been almost wilfully misunderstood.
I said "moist English lawn grass that can grow a couple of inches in a week" which brings this comment: "If you sold me a lawn mower it would be one I've see work in wet or damp grass." and "Expecting a cheap mower to cut long wet grass may be to much to ask for."
If I'd meant wet or even damp grass, I'd have said so. I said moist referring to the quality of the grass and illustrated this with a reference to an earlier experience the Japanese manufacturers had not accounting for the silicate content of English grass.
Just to be clear, this once a week cut of moist grass (not wet or damp) which is at most a couple of inches tall can normally be easily managed with a cylinder mower but: http://www.mlys00070.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lawns/rotary%20mowers.htm
This is precisely the job a rotary mower should do and do well.
But OK, maybe it is OK to design and sell junk for the same money you can buy "quality" products.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Sometimes you buy cheap tools, sometimes other people buy cheap lawnmowers. I have used cheap tool when I had to, I don't any more. It's a question of how many bloody knuckles and rounded bolt heads you want to put up with.
So the question is, is the engineer or designer who designed the cheap tools unethical? There must be a nitch for such tools, Wal-Mart, Target etc. are full of them. Are all the people associated with putting those tools unethical.
My point is quality is not a function of the product, it's a description of how the product was selected. If the selection process is faulty then the product may be inadequate for the job it was supposed to do.
I think JWM may have a good ideal. Let's establish ASTM standards for lawn mowers and other consumer items goods. Of course we need to establish committees to establishe all the performance catagories, tests and certifications need to assure the mowers comply with the standards. Or we could use consumer reports, or use a local dealer we can rely on if want take it back.
JMW I would have messed up on the specs for a lawn mower to cut "english grass". I have realtives that have been raising grass seed for years and they have never heard of english grass. All I could find by google was that it's a landscape term and not a specific variety of grass.
I would suggest that you file suit against the manufacturer, gettin a class action suit to bring rememdy all those people who bought that particular lawn mower.
Speaking of suits. Do you know why mower now have the kill bar on the handle? It was because a surgeon ( who you would assume to be intelligent ) picked up his mower and was holding it vertically to trim a hedge. The mower of course whacked up his fingers so bad he was out of the doctor business. He sued and was awarded a multi million dollar settlement and now all mowers have kill switches.
My point is that it is unethical to call someone unethical because you bought a lawmower or something else that doesn't work for you.
I have bought lots of crap but never thought the people that made or designed it were unethical. One was a Ford Tarus. Ford got a lot of Kudus on their quality program for Tarus. It ws a pretty good car and ran good. There were some pretty dumb things about it, like having to almost disassemble the entire car to replace heater hoses or heater fan. Nothing could be repaired on the front end for less that $700.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Bottomline, the engineers did the best job possible, but the production end had different priorities, such as potentially eliminating "features" that were essential in the original design. The braces you mentioned may have been added to stiffen the structure because the production end decided to use cheaper or thinner walls than originally designed.
TTFN
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Products are built by teams, parallel engineering, preferably, and working closely with the marketing teams.
This product was comparably priced with similarly featured rotary mowers.
Short of doing a full design evaluation in the store, superficially equivalent.
If they skimmed some costs, they didn't let that get in the way of a good margin.
There is an assumption that i bought a bad mower. Correct.
That I knew it was bad. Inccorrect. That i got what I deserved at the price. Incorrect.
The bench mark for any product is "fitness for purpose". Does it meet this critetria? Yes, not well, but yes. Do other mowers meet the criteria as well or better? Petently so and with no cost penalties reflected in the sales price.
It may be that I don't understand engineering or quality. It begins to seem that way. I agreed with much of what BJC had to say on what "quality" is. I do.
But what we seem to be incapable of acknowledging is that there are some designs out there that could have been a whole lot better for the same cost and with the same features.
I am saying I have a product which is badly designed and everyone insists there is no such thing as a bad design. Engineers don't make bad designs.
I understand the concept of designing for the market and designing to a target very very well. I have witnessed some notably failures and achieved some significant successes myself.
This is not some anonymous product from a five and dime store but a product from a recognised brand company and from a leading retailer of exactly what I want to buy, a mower for once a week during the summer.
"English" grass is grass grown in an English climate deriving its nutrients from the soil in the usual way but benefiting differently from the soil and climate from elsewhere.
Did no one ever see corn grown in one field completely different to corn grown in another county or on poor soil? They are different. In a normal wet summer the grass grows fast and is full of moisture. When it is dry enough to cut most mowers do a decent job. This doesn't.
I can't say clearer than that, but i am getting feedback that would do credit to the tobaco lobby explaining that smoking is good for you.
I stand corrected.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Selling consumer goods is mostly about cup holders and chrome stripes. That's the way Western society works.
One company chose to make a good product, the other made a less good but presumably more attractive product. Why did the purchaser choose the second one? Because there was something about it that appealed more to them. Whether it was price, styling, nameplate, availability or whatever. The point is it was not assessed on ability to perform its intended function. Effectively it was an impulse buy.
I agree it would be hard to assess the general functionality of a lawnmower without a test drive, that's why I suggested asking for recommendations and so on. On the other hand Blind Freddy could see that the wheels were outboard of the rotor, making edge trimming impossible.
By persuading the purchaser to buy his lawnmower the design engineer succeeded in his design brief - the purchaser bought the product he was asked to design. Having worked on a car that was much better engineered than the competition, but looked a bit ugly, and seen the resulting sales, I'd point out that there is /no/ profitable future in well made unattractive designs for the consumer market. Faced with consumers who are more interested in aesthetics than functionality, there is only one way that designs will evolve.
So, what will you do next time you buy a mower?
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
There was a thread floating around here not more than a year old, where the design engineer was bitterly complaining about the contract production facility in China using inferior parts and modifying the product without permission or oversight.
TTFN
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
There is nothing to be done to improve this without passing another law or another government agency involved. And we all know we don't need that. Your example is only one of a billion. The poor designs always take care of themselves.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Something to consider - different companies have different skill sets. JMW suggets that his mower could have been made a whole lot better at the price point, becuase someone else did just that. But, it may simply be the case that the designers of the mower he bought don't have the skills to make a better design than what they came up with. Perhaps the company didn't want to pay enough to get better engineers, and as a result, the lack of skill meant that they couldn't come up with a better design for the sales price that they were targeting.
Engineers are not just a bunch of black beans for the accountants to sort. We're all different, with different levels of skill and experience.
Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas
"All the world is a Spring"
All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
My example is the particular make and model of rotary lawn mower my elderly parents purchased. Low cost and widly available I think there is an inherent dange in these and other designs that, because of circumstances, may not leave the manufacturers legally liable. You will see what I mean, but will, I think see that here the law is an ass.
Not to throw flames, but the way I’m reading the topic-starter, this purchase decision was your parents’, not yours. So let me suggest that your parents probably chose that particular mower based on a slightly different perspective as regards respect for powered machinery (especially as applied to tools intended for cutting stuff) and personal responsibility than can be expected of today’s lowest-common-denominator customer. You, as an IE, probably have more contact with issues involving said L.C.D. individuals. Their specific age is not important beyond some presumption of physical ability to use the mower. But I’m sure that they remember when the only rotary lawn mower “safety feature” was a toothed plate mounted on the rear wall of the deck, intended, more or less, to keep the feet from being run over. And when grass collectors were rare. That's part of their basis for choice.
It appears that the bracing scheme is mostly the issue here. You need something, as the deck is otherwise a flattish thin plate that supports a couple of sources of vibration (read: fatigue and, ultimately, cracking – or needlessly heavy) but which is not equally supported around its entire periphery by the walls. Structurally, the grass discharge opening is a “soft” spot between two of the wheels. Presumably there are better solutions, and this should be part of next time's purchase decision process.
On the safety items, believe me, I fully understand the frustration with budget-minded and/or less than fully thought out approaches to [lawn mower] safety as well as the unintended consequences of same (isn’t there an anecdotal “law” by that title?). I’m more than a little insulted, actually, when such features pre-empt my own judgement (which has been serving me reasonably well so far, as I approach my 57th birthday this fall). It implies that some entity considers me to be an utter moron, at best only marginally qualified to operate the product (by virtue of having a non-zero pulse and enough money or credit to purchase it). Hence I need to be protected against myself.
Norm
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
However I think the central issue focuses around jmw's observation that we have over a century of mower design experience.
For many years the US has exported manufacturing overseas to low cost 3rd world producers. However the design and development of these goods was still done in the US, Canada or Europe where this experince was available. However the third world has been exporting engineering students to these countries and have devloped the ability ty begin there own design work. Armed with little historical design background, no budget for testing and devlopment and a low price point, they are making their own mowers. The price and cost is low enough that they will sell enough that even if they are not very good, they wont get hurt. As they learn, the mowers will improve. I bet if you check the manual, you will see that the mowers are made overseas. My guess is that they were designed there too.
This is a serious problem. The rapid decline in western manufacturing will continue to have a horrible impact on our standard of living. We need to make our societies aware how important manufacturing is to us.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
OK Rant over
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Possibly the first time he had used his own product in years and a good lesson in testing things before demonstrating them.
Needless to say, a string of deisgn improvements followed.
But don't let's get onto packaging designs or you will get me started on "tamper-proof" packaging and ow the elederly are starving to death because they can't open food packaging or "child-proof" caps on medicines. Is it just me who has noticed that often, the only people who can open these things are children?
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
I have bought and used many different rotary lawnmowers in Florida, USA. Your complaints are baseless.
1) Check out 8+hp walk behind mowers or standing rider units. The wheels are well within the cutting swath. These are heavy commercial mowers. Lawn sweepers may be towed behind to pick up cuttings on self-propelled models. The edge cutting is not great due to limited manuverability.
2) On the 22"-30" standard single blade rotary mowers, the wheels are outside the cutting swath. Either cut perpandicular to the edge and push the front of the mower over the it or try a weed wacker/string cutter. Tall moist grass will always clog these rotary mowers, without or without a bag attachment. Try cutting in the late afternoon on a day without rain for optimum performance.
3) Check out other wheeled string cutters. These mowers have no edge limitations. However, they do not collect grass cuttingsare are more of a commercial type mower with limited brush cutting capabilities.
4) You are unrealistically a device to multi-function perfectly. First function is to bulk cut grass, second function to collect the grass cuttings and third function is to edge cut. Sacrifices and compromises are made for safetry, ergonomics, economy and multi-functionality.
5) You are an engineer, design a better mower.
6) Buy your parents a robotic lawn mower, mow more often with a mulching blade and just dethatch annually.
7) Replant the lawn with a slower growing grass or alternate ground cover (mulch, concrete, astroturf, etc). Try growth inhibitors if your parents would like to mow the lawn less frequently.
Cliff Laubstein
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Many aspects of the design are for marketing purposes. Myself, I bought a cheap lawnmower and applied a Harley-Davidson sticker to it. It would probably sell for $100 more.
I bet that most lawnmowers are purchased without a lot of study. The old one breaks, you stop at the local lawn center and pick a new one out. Maybe this time you get the one with front-wheel drive, or a larger deck. It is doubtful many purchasers look at the vent location or placement of the wheels.
The ultimate solution: Buy a Honda lawnmower!
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
The pedals and steering wheel were not spaced properly either. I'm 5-10 and average build. i ussually have no problem getting comfortable in any car. In this car, if my legs were comfortable, I could barely reach the steering wheel. Not to mention the seats were like sitting on a metal folding chair.
The armrest on the door was also too far forward when the seat was back far enough to be comfortable. It's like it was designed for someone with extremely short legs and long arms.
I can't get over how badly this car ws designed.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
I bought a mower five years ago. I bought the cheapest mower I could find from a well known name (Flymo). The mower has never been brilliant, but it cuts the grass and still works. The basic design of this mower is very similar to one my father used in the 1970’s. I’m keen on the fact that the design is tried and tested - I don’t want newfangled.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
We also have a 10 year old Lawnboy with a cheap, heavy stamped steel deck, tiny wheels arranged in a square pattern (at least inside the cut width)
Both these mowers came from the same market segment, and same company, with the first one being a far superior product.
What happened?
Cost cutting measures altered the construction techniques.
Now to the product in question, take the grass catcher off. Problem solved. It gets chopped up and fertilizes the lawn.
Do you realize the modern concept of a lawn is less than 100 years old? I hope to design the landscaping of our future house to elinimate this machine from my workload!
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Before lawn mowers the gentry had lots of yokel types with scythes ..... but enough for now, I've received stick enough for daring to suggest that some products can be badly designed when in fact it's all my fault.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
I have an acre lot... it takes 2 hours on a riding lawn mower.
Come on over, be my guest.....
BTW, I'm not obese, not even fat... pretty fit. I'll be damned if I'm going to spend half the summer pushing around my manual rotary (which I have for trimming) because of you arrogant ideas.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Been there, done that. Too many years ago I used to cut a couple of lawns with manual reel-type mowers on a regular basis. Those things don't cut taller blades of grass very well, aren't easily set to leave the grass deeper (so that it won't burn as readily), and cut narrow swaths. Translation: lawn duty with an all-manual mower requires more mowing time over the course of a season than I'm willing to spend on that activity, even for a 1/4 acre plot (that's what the manual rotaries are for).
And I'd rather get my exercise from free weights and bicycle riding anyway.
Norm
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
If you talk to the guy who "designed" your parent's mower, I would bet that he could defend each of the design "features" with vigor and passion.
I suppose if you consider the design to be onerous and dangerous, you might want to consider not letting your parent's use it.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Most products have to be safe and fit for the purpose intended, in some countries both are legal requirements. There is no "buyer beware" loophole.
There can be poor products that don't fit the market needs, there can be products that don't meet their financial objectives.
When introducing new products, they don't have to be right, they get better with each evolution. When intoruding "me-too" products they ahve to be right and competitive and even then need some help.
I will say here that i am, in many buyin situations, not an expert on what i buy. I have bought wrong products before, innappropriate products and expect to do so again. Like most people i depend on reputation, brand names etc when buying because this is one of my assurances that what i buy will be well thought out and designed for people just like me.
If i was a lawnmower expert, then i could be expected to recognise a 100 or more different design features and make an on the spot evaluation of buy or not buy.
No one buying consumer products is a specialist in what they buy. They are a consumer. They have a right (under law) that it is safe and fit for the purpose intended.
One of the wasy consumers can be relatively confident that they can buy products with a reasonable expectation that it has been well designed is to buy brand name products from recognised suppliers. This is what branding is all about.
When dealing with a reputable supplier or internationally recognised company, especially in such a litigious age, what company could/would/should have its products designed by a "relatively handy guy" or an accountant?
Who signs off the product?
Who takes design responsibility?
Whoever does do the design has to be competent to do the work. Whoever signs it off has to be satisfied that it meets the specs.
Marketing should present a specification for a product wihich, with certain features, which should command a certain price in the market and take a specific share of the market and it is then up to engineers to design the best product they can within the allowed cost and if they can't, to say so.
I know that many engineers are keen to design the product they would like and not the product that will sell. I've seen this happen. I have seen the consequences. I have also seen products designed by a team of engineers and marketing specialists and so on and seen it doen well and seen what a successful product is.
Titanium is a wonderful material. We could probably make a marvelous lawn mower from it but low grade pressed steel or aluminium is fine. It doesn't have to last a lifetime anymore because the cost of replacement is cheaper than the lifetime cost of annual service and repair. AT some point its value depreciates to zero. That doesn't make it a bad design, rather , it is a good design because it meets its design objectives.
It is not whether a product has added features worthy of extra price but that in a product which has evolved for over 100years, poor design features are incorporated in a design which, for the same money and features, would appear to be better designed by other manufacturers and have been better designed in the past. This isn't an evolutionary thing.
It also seems to me that there is an assumption that if an engineer was involved the product can't be bad, it is the buyer who is wrong or that if the product is bad and the buyer is right, then it wasn't designed by an engineer.
I should say that i started this thread not to slag off a particular product but to raise the question of good and bad design. No, inexcusable bad design, since in the real world we know bad designs can happen.
I guess that has been answered:
- if it is a bad design, it wasn't an engineer who designed it
- if an engineer designed it, it isn't a bad design
If that were the case there would be no recalls on cars. We wouldn't have whole thread about engineering disasters. Some errors are natural. They result from pushing the envelope. Some are natural because engineers are human and humans make mistakes. I do. But for some things there are no excuses, or so i thought.But the suggestion here seems to be that engineers are infallable and consumers deserve what they get.
Really?
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
Engineers are by no means infallible. They make mistakes like everyone else. The practice of engineering is not a perfect science. The standard of care for engineering is not perfection...it is the absence of negligence.
Fitness for purpose is a somewhat nebulous term, though legally entwined. One could argue that the only thing a mower must do to prove fitness for purpose is to hack the grass off as some level. Yes, it is more complex than that, but it would appear that if you were engaged to prove that the mower were dangerous, you have only provided evidence that it is an inefficient design. Does such inefficiency beget danger? Perhaps, but that is arguable, and it is what causes attorneys (solicitors, barristers, or I'm sure others have more colorful names for them) to make more money than engineers!
To your larger point, which is certainly worthy of discussion, I do believe (and have investigated such) that dangerous designs are propounded on the consuming public all too often. Unfortunately, there must usually be some accident (harm) before such designs are contested.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
A "central design bureau"... "run by the government"...man, that's scary thought!
Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
www.tankindustry.com
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
"... run by the government, staffed by engineers who would have no motive ..."
Sounds like a few design reviews I have had to partipate in.
Monkeydog
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
More government intervention.....
brilliant....super...oh,I can't wait...
sheesh
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs
If you think the goverment designing lawn mowers is scary, think about the group in charge of producing beer.
RE: Inexcusable Bad Designs