This is a great example of teamwork and practice, but, I don't get it. Why is this engineering? Why is the ability to take a Jeep apart and reassemble it in 4 minutes "simply great design"? Is that what Jeeps are for?
It takes a lot more forethought and skill to make something complex simple than it takes to make something simple complex. That is what makes Apple's products stand out and it is incredibly hard.
The "engineering" here is not what the guys in the video did, but what the guys back in WW2 did to design a vehicle that could be stripped and reassembled in the field.
By saying "that's what Jeeps are for" you are just taking it for granted... Vehicles don't grow on trees.
Looks like I failed miserably at asking this earlier, but I'm just looking for a reference to the stated design goals. If it is the reason you state, I'm just looking for a reference to it.
Asking "what Jeeps are for" was meant to get at the design goals and I did not mean to dis what is otherwise a very fascinating design choice.
I hear you man, but to me good engineering is also about the problem it is trying to solve and I did not find a reference to that in the original source, so was just asking for more information.
I see. You and 3 buddies are driving along the road in Burma during WWII, and you run over a landmine. Two of you are dead, two of you are injured. You drag your concussed, burned selves to the next base. You get first aid, pick up parts from the depot, get a ride back to the jeep, repair it under fire, and drive it back to the base.
The fact that you can easily pickup and install the parts quickly in a mine field while under fire is a big plus.
How does the ability to take a Jeep apart and reassemble it in 4 minutes (by 8+ guys) help you in "doing major repairs at the side of the road with people shooting at you"?
In a hostile context like you describe (if that's what this is meant for) don't you think there might be other design considerations?
The british army stick with a 10year old version of the land rover for the same reason - you don't want to be in a ditch in Afghanistan trying to fix a computerized engine management system with a hammer.
The point I've been trying to make is that simplicity/great-design has a context and that context is missing in the original source. Everyone here seems to be adding context, but I have to take their word for it because they are not presenting it with any supporting facts. e.g., a reference to where the British army claims to be sticking with a 10yr old version of the land rover, to avoid having to deal with computerized engine management system malfunctions in hostile situations.
While I can see and agree with the point that people are making, I would just prefer if they were substantiated.
