Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> OEMs (GM, Ford, Toyota, VW, etc) do not design components, and they do not want to. They design specifications for components, and then get suppliers to bid. This is great for efficiency in established ecosystems, not great for agility.

There are some great stories about SpaceX trying to source components this way and then finally ending up having to DIY.

What they found was that modern CAD and rapid prototyping made it easier than it used to be. Car companies would probably find the same thing, and have the luxury of doing it piecemeal at their own pace by gradually insourcing components in the order of necessity or benefit.

The “do not want to” part probably points to these companies being run by Ivy League MBAs educated in the 1990s and 2000s when this was conventional wisdom. The world is changing.



view as:

I wish company leadership knew that conventional wisdom is time-bound and has an expiration date. Of course, actually trying to figure out if the conventional wisdom still holds involves risking time and money on R&D. And, the larger the institution the more risk averse the leadership will be. It’s a real shame that the companies you would think have the most ability to absorb risk are the most averse towards taking them.

It’s not just science that advances one funeral at a time.

I worked in aerospace for six years before changing into automotive. The difference could not be bigger.

In aerospace cost didn't matter a lot and many things are custom built, even down to custom alloys and materials. Also the amount of planning, numerical analysis, simulation, preparation and especially testing is insane. Project timelines are sometimes more than a decade.

In automotive 'cost down' is the mantra and is often enough measured in fractions of cents. Almost nothing is customized and parts reused for different product lines whenever possible.


Legal | privacy