When Old Does Not Mean Obsolete
February 1st, 2010
|
| Share |
Technology generally improves as time goes on and in addition to lacking new features, old technology is subject to years of wear and tear. This generally means that new systems are better, but that’s not a hard and fast rule. This is even more true considering that many older pieces of technology were “over-engineered,” literally built to tougher, stronger and even safer standards than current technology. The reason for this is experience and precision of engineering. At the time, there was not as much experience with construction of vehicles and buildings and tolerances and failure points were not known with the precision that they are today. Ironically, this lead to construction that was actually far better than it really needed to be, simply because conservative engineers made the factor of safety more generous to assure that their designs were safe, even when in uncharted territory.
In a few cases, this was increased by some early bad experiences. For example, the first passenger jet, the De Havilland Comet suffered a number of accidents resulting from metal fatigue, which was traced to the corners of the aircraft’s windows. This revelation caused designers at De Havilland to redesign the aircraft, replacing square windows with round and adding extensive structural strengthening. When Boeing designed the 707, they were aware of the dangers that had plagued the early Comet designs and likewise, designed a very conservative and overbuilt airframe. Having had decades of experience with these aircraft, it’s been discovered that they can safely log far more hours than the original designers had estimated. For this reason, a decades-old version of the Comet is still serving the British Air Force and is expected to for at least another ten years, while the 707-based KC-135 continues to serve the US Air Force.
There are other factors that come into play with older technologies. In many cases, materials, labor and fuel were cheaper, allowing for bulkier construction which. In some cases, newer, cheaper and less robust methods of construction did not exist. In addition to this, there has been pressure on designers to make products that don’t last too long. After all, if a company’s product lasts 50 years, it will be 50 years before they get to sell a replacement. The term for this is planned obsolescence.
Yet another reason why older systems may be better is that they tend to be more simply constructed and easily modified. It’s said that “wasn’t designed to” does not mean “can’t” and this can be very true with designs that have the avaliable space and strength to accept major modifications to their design or use. The B-52, for example, was designed to carry nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union and penetrate heavily defended airspace. Today it serves as a heavy conventional bomber and has the nuclear role of delivering nuclear-armed cruise missiles, despite the fact that air launched cruise missiles of this type didn’t even exist when it rolled off the assembly line. The B-52 is example of a system that may be so old that many of the instruments and control systems it has since been fitted with didn’t even exist when it was built.
They Just don’t make ‘em like that anymore (When Older is Better):
The PCC Streetcar - Short for Presidents’ Conference Committee, the PCC is a type of Tram/Trolley that was first built in the United States in the 1930’s. The streetcar was designed by a committee of presidents of various electric and urban railways in the US. It may be the first and last time that a committee ever produced something useful and well built. The PPC design has a distinctive streamlined look and features sturdy construction, powerful motors and an interior that is roomy, comfortable and resistant to damage. The PPC was originally built with purpose-built motors from Westinghouse, but the design allows for modification, as the cab can easily be removed from the wheel trucks and placed on new ones.
The PCC design is often considered the gold standard of streetcar design. The look is timeless and they continue to have utility that can compete with more modern designs. Although originally American, the PPC design was licensed to numerous other countries including the Soviet Union, Canada, numerous European countries and others. Between 1936 and 1955, over five thousand PPC-style streetcars were built. With the destruction of most lightrail and tram lines in the US, many of the retired PPC’s were bought up by the few lines that still existed or exported.
They remain in use in numerous markets around the world. A few discontinued the use of PPC streetcars in the 1980’s or later only to find that their newer replacements did not have the same utility. Today surviving PPC streetcars are very highly desired by lightrail operators and several cities that had retired PPC’s are now looking to restore their fleets, refurbishing old PPC’s.
The Douglas DC-3 - If you are looking for a rugged, reliable, economical aircraft for medium capacity cargo and passenger operations, you will find no better aircraft in existance than the DC-3. There have been many attempts to provide a general purpose utility aircraft comparable to the DC-3, but nobody has yet exceeded it for its legendary reliability, flexibility and all around usefulness.
The first DC-3 rolled off the assembly lines in 1935, intended for use primarily as a passenger aircraft. To this end it was wildly successful, laying the foundation for what would become the commercial aviation industry. It could cary between 21 and 32 passengers, depending on the configuration and was one of the first land-based aircraft that could provide passengers with extended duration flight with comforts like a galley, bunks and relatively smooth flight.
With the start of the Second World War, production of the civilian DC-3 ceased and military version of the airframe, the C-47 went into mass production. The C-47 was used for medivac, troop transport, paratrooper deployment, airlifts, cargo transport and other general purpose transport operations. After the war, thousands of C-47 airframes were sold as surplus and many were reconfigured to serve as civil transports and airliners. Even with the dawn of the jetage, the DC-3 remained a major backbone of the airline industry for short-distance and commuter use well into the 1960’s.
At least 12,000 DC-3 and C-47 airframes were built between 1935 and 1952, including licensed versions, such as the Lisunov Li-2, a version produced on license in the Soviet Union. Today the exact number built is not known, due to the large number of manufactures who licensed the design and produced variations. There are known to be at least a thousand, and possibly more than two thousand DC-3 airframes that are relatively complete, and they have become a hot commodity for restoration and return to service, as they are famous for being very easy to breakdown and rebuild. There are at least several hundred still in service. A few are flying museum-pieces, but many continue to serve in roles including passenger charters, cargo delivery, sky diving, areal surveying and other applications. They are especially popular with companies that fly in remote areas such as island-hopping charters and those that operate in Africa, Alaska or Northern Canada. They can land and take off on rugged, short airstrips and are legendary for being easy to maintain. Aircraft are extremely expensive to keep maintained and up and running, but the DC-3 can be kept in top-notch condition with few man hours and little more than a toolbox. This is its single greatest assert and the reason why it has yet to be outdone.
In addition to the DC-3 there are several derivative aircraft, which are registered as new aircraft types but are, in fact, DC-3 airframes that have been modified. This includes the Basler BT-67, a turboprop aircraft that is built on highly-modified DC-3 airframes. Airtech Canada and other companies also offer modified converted DC-3’s with new engines and features including glass cockpits. Conroy aircraft even offers a DC-3 conversion using three turboprop engines. Although these aircraft may not be considered DC-3’s in the strictest sense, they represent a cottage industry that has sprung to find DC-3 airframes and refurb them. Today many DC-3’s in service may have been cut up, welded back together, scavenged, refitted, retooled, rebuilt, retrofitted and had parts replaced in every major system. You just can’t do that with new airplanes.
The PRI 111/111B/111C Scintillator – No, it’s not a hair dryer or a ray gun from a 1950’s SciFi movie, but you could be forgiven for thinking it is. This is the Precision Radiation Instruments “Scintillator” radiation detector. The PRI Model 111 Scintillator came onto the market in 1952 and was followed in 1954 by the Model 111B “De Lux Scintillator,” which was the same basic design but more sensitive. At several hundred dollars each, these radiation detectors cost as much as an automobile when they were new.
These instruments came out at a time when America was experiencing the “Uranium Boom,” and many prospectors were looking to strike it rich by staking claim to a uranium deposit. In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s the US government offered a bounty of up to several thousand dollars for the discovery of minable uranium deposits. Thus, if you managed to find one, even these expensive detectors would pay for themselves.
At the time, the standard for radiation detection was the Geiger-Muller tube. Geiger detectors work fairly well, but given that uranium is only slightly radioactive, you had to be almost on top of the uranium ore to detect it over background. These detectors, however, used a different method for detecting radiation, which provides more sensitivity and precision. As the name implies, these “scintillators” are scintillation detectors. They were some of the first commercial detectors to use a high density crystal made of thallium-doped sodium iodine. When a gamma ray photon collides with this material it creates a tiny flash of light, which is picked up by a photomultiplier tube.
Amazingly, when it comes to detecting low levels of ionizing radiation, these vintage detectors will hold their own against the best of new high-tech radiation detectors. I can attest that having pulled the crystal and PMT out of an old PRI model 111, it’s at least as good as any modern spectroscopy-grade scintillation detector when wired up to modern equipment.
Today these detectors are still considered amongst the best for finding uranium and are even known to still be in use by agencies like the DOE to assess areas of soil contamination or do other survey work, seeking low level sources and small changes in background radiation.
There are, however, two problems that most who buy a second hand PRI-111 or 111B scintillator tend to encounter: The first is that the device uses 22.5 and 67 volt “tube radio” batteries, not the standard 1.5 volt cells that are common today. These are very difficult to find, as few devices today use such batteries. The other problem is that the NaI crystals in these detectors become cloudy and yellow over time, due to the absorption of moisture. This renders the detectors all but useless.
But happily, both these issues can be easily addressed. This gentleman’s website may look a bit basic, but I’ve he sells an excellent little battery converter for these devices. It’s simply a small voltage converter that lets you run the Scintillator off of common alkaline batteries. He also can rework your crystal back to like-new condition, eliminating the yellow haze and returning it to a clear condition. I honestly have no idea how he does it, but I suspect it may involve a vacuum chamber used in combination with heating or cooling to draw the moisture out of the crystal. I really don’t know how it’s done, but I can attest that it does work!
Heathkit HF Amplifiers – Ham radio operators have always had a tendency to prefer resourcefulness to spending money, and thus tend to be attracted to products that ease of setup for cost. For this reason, Heathkit has long been a mainstay of the ham radio world. Heathkit products, as the name implies, were sold in the form of parts kits that the end user had to assemble. Heathkit kits have been out of production since the late 1980’s, but second-hand Heathkit linear HF amplifiers remain one of the fixtures of ham radio, even in modern shacks.
These RF amplifiers use heavy tubes, not FET’s like many modern amplifiers. They can crank out up to 1500 watts, the maximum allowed by law and sometimes even more. They are known for being economical, simple and reliable. The heavy tubes in these amplifiers are rugged and not as easily damaged by over-driving or high SWR, when compared to newer amplifiers. Second hand healthkit amplifiers dating back to the 1960’s and earlier are prized by hams and are among the most commonly found high-power amplifiers.
Although simple, effective and reliable, they are not lightweight or technically elegant, thus earning them the nickname “boat anchor,” because if you’re not using them for transmitting, they’ll also work pretty well to keep a boat in one place.
The AK-47 – In use since 1947 and still in production, the AK-47 is both a legendary firearm and the mainstay of many ground forces to this day. The AK-47 is produced in Russia and is known for its ease of production, ease of use, effectiveness, durability and flexibility. It has been faced by US and other Western forces in numerous conflicts, including the Vietnam and Korean wars. Although the design is Russian, the design has been produced under license (and occasionally without license) in numerous other countries, including China, Pakistan and elsewhere. In the west it can also be found in the form of civilian versions and various knock-offs. In general, the fully automatic version of the AK-47 is illegal for civilian use, but it has none the less proliferated through illecit trade. It has thus become iconic as the “bad guy gun” used by drug traffickers, Somali pirates and mobsters. Despite this, it has earned a healthy respect from allied military forces.
The legendary performance of the AK-47 may have been matched by weapons like the M-16, but it has never been exceeded. Indeed, comparing the performance of the AK-47 versus the M-16 has been a topic of heated debate since the 1960’s, but one thing remains clear: the AK-47 is still a very viable and deadly weapon on the modern battle field and can go head-to-head with weapons that did not enter manufacturing until many years after the AK-47. It is also generally cheaper to manufacture than its western equivalents, an important consideration when it comes to building enough to create overwhelming superiority of numbers.
Puma Classic Suede Sneakers - They look great and have been manufactured since the late 1958. The current classic Puma sneaker is basically unchanged from the final design of the shoe worn in 1968 Mexico City Olympics. The 1968 suede shoe is now known as the “Clyde.” Variations on the design have been sold with slightly modified soles and in a variety of color schemes.
Today they are sold as “Lifestyle” shoes and are largely surpassed in the world of sports. Since the 1960’s, athletic sneakers have introduced features including air and gel-based cushioning, various sole support designs, computer-designed tread systems and other advanced features.
Personally, I’ve never worn a more comfortable shoe. They’re just so damn comfortable! I got my first pair several years ago and since then have kept coming back for more of the same, each time one wears out. I’d wear them even if they didn’t look so good, which of course, they do!
World War II Era Searchlights - The searchlight was once the primary method of locating and tracking aircraft at night. These massive lights could produce upwards of two billion candlepower each, making them visible as far away as 50 miles. The largest had their own deisel generators and used massive carbon arc light sources to produce the intense beams of light.
They reached their climax in the early years of the Second World War, when their importance began to be eclipsed by radar. Initially radar systems had enormous antennas and could only determine the approximate location of aircraft. These radar systems were sometimes used in conjunction with searchlights, guiding the lights to the location of the aircraft so that the lights could track them and allow night fighters or ground guns to attack. However, as the war progressed, microwave radar became the standard and units became small enough to be flown on board aircraft or deployed to the location of anti-aircraft batteries. This largely rendered searchlights obsolete as an antiaircraft measure.
By the end of the war, searchlights were only used in a few minor applications. In some cases, their use was part of a deception scheme to hide the true effectiveness of radar systems developed by the British. Thus by the end of the war, most of these beasts were sold off as surplus. In this capacity they found an entirely new use. Prior to the second world war, searchlights had sometimes been used as promotional or marketing tools, but their use exploded. They were especially iconic of movie openings. Today searchlights remain a big crowd pleaser at award ceremonies, movie openings and even things like store grand openings.
The largest, most powerful and generally most well regarded search lights that you can get are often decades old. These massive battle-seasoned searchlights can outshine most modern equivalents and many are now restored and can be rented for events. In the 1980’s, xenon-based searchlights came onto the market. The xenon lights are more effecient and often have multiple lights per unit, which can spin and orbit automatically. While these lights are more effecient than the older military grade searchlights, they are also considerably less powerful and when the two types are used together, the xenon lights end up looking embarrassingly puny. Some rental agencies have even discontinued their use, because they are so inferior to the vintage 1940’s units.
Other examples:
- The B-52 Stratofortress
- The DC-9 and C-9 Skytrain 2
- The KC-135 Stratotanker
- The C-130 (not only produced since the 1950’s, but still in production)
- The Tu-95 “Bear”
- The Proton Rocket
- The Soyuz Space Capsule
- DSV-2 Alvin
- The 1957 Chevy Bell Air
- The R-17 “Redbird”
- The Chrysler Building
- The Wurlitzer Theater Organ
- The M113 Armored Personnel Carrier
- Roman Era Aquaducts
- The Rolling Stones
This entry was posted on Monday, February 1st, 2010 at 12:45 pm and is filed under Culture, Good Science, History, Misc. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
February 1st, 2010 at 2:19 pm
I am glad you mentioned the DC-9, those are tough little birds that kept on flying no mater how badly they were treated. I recall one ex-Turkish aircraft that landed for an overhaul evaluation at a maintenance base I was working at. It had blankets stuffed in the door seams so they could pressurize it, and when we took off the rear cargo floor panels, all we found of the ribs were dust. The plane was so bad the MOT inspector decertified it on the spot, meaning the owner had to repair it, or have it cut up. One way or the other, it wasn’t flying out in the condition it was in.
In the end we did a Heavy D-check and brought it back up to spec, and it was latter sold to a US based carrier. But the fact that that ship was still flying with so much in need of fixing, and had been working, carting passengers, only a week before it came to us, is a testament to how well built that type was.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Wonderful post. I’ve been repairing and restoring old tube radios and amp for years, and can attest to the fact that although you might have to retrofit them with newer parts (especially capacitors) to keep them running, once you rebuild one, it should be good for another 50 years.
And they won’t go POOF! if an EMP comes along….
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2010 at 3:49 pm
A great post and very true. Some technology doesn’t improve because they built it right the first time and sometimes it gets worse because of cheaper construction.
I would add to that a number of guitars and amplifiers that either have been made basically the same for years or where the vintage ones are considered superior. Some of the vintage Marshall and Fender amps they used great solid tubes in. Far from obsolete!
How about the older film cameras, the basic slide type. Some pro photographers who still use film use those old style cameras. They give a lot more control but everything is manual on them.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Wow, what a great post! One of your best, I do say.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2010 at 8:54 pm
I noticed that Airbus has made a new aircraft for military transport. It looks just like a C-130. But is as goo as the original. Somehow I don’t think so.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2010 at 9:34 pm
JCARLTON said:
Yes, the Airbus A400M is intended as a competitor to the C-130 and is basically supposed to be a domestic European alternative to the C-130. It has some advanced multi-blade props (similar to the C-130J Super Hercules) that are supposed to be more effecient at higher speeds and on paper, it has a slightly higher capacity than the standard issue C-130 and approximately the same as the C-130J Super Hurclese. Actually the C-130 has a slightly higher useful load to a given range but has the A400M has a larger internal volume capacity.
Thus, I think between the two, they’re pretty similar in capability.
However, I think it’s a fools game to try to outdo the C-130. I’m not trying to be American-centric here or deny that the Europeans are not capable of building great airplanes, but the C-130 is as close to perfection in design for what it does that outdoing it is really going to be a losing proposition. It’s like trying to out rock the Stones or be a greater ball player than Babe Ruth. You may have more hits and higher batting average on paper, but you’ll never get that legendary greatness of the Bambino.
The C-130 has been around for many years. It embodies a utilitarian design philosophy that almost doesn’t exist at all. It has been modified to take off nearly vertically and land in almost zero clearance using rocket motors. It has been fitted for fire fighting, a a gunship, as a paratrooper jump plane, a refueler and everything else you can think of.
It’s the largest aircraft (by far) to take off and land on an aircraft carrier. It’s the only aircraft to land and take off in a full blown winter storm in Antarctica. It’s landed on wheels, skis and even floats. It flies into hurricanes and takes off in snow storms.
I wouldn’t even bother trying to outdo it.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Great piece. I had the “pleasure” of seeing both B-52s (not the band sadly) and DC-3’s in operartion. What they have in “lifespan” is mae up for in high fuel usage and noise.
Smokey and loud!
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:32 am
Chris said:
I don’t know about that. The DC-3 is no less fuel effecient than any comparably sized prop plane and the B-52 might not sip fuel, but that’s not what matters in a combat zone. So you pay more in fuel? The B-52 gets you home with hale the tail blown off and four of the eight engines shot out. That’s what matters.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:31 am
Of course, overdesign is not always the best idea for safety. A big old Cadillac could easily outlive its passengers during a medium speed crash while a modern car would foil to absorb as much energy as possible.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:25 am
We shouldn’t forget the Browning M2 .50 machine gun. It have been in service for 90 years and are still being built. The Browning design for the Colt M1911 is even older, but as far as I know, it is only used by some special forces, but is still popular for civilians.
For that matter the M24 and M40 sniper rifles are based on the Remington 700 which is based on 19th century Mauser designs.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:12 am
The IBM model M; built like a tank, lovely clicky tactile feel and built-in channels for coffee-spills.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:17 am
While I agree with the sentiment of the article, that 1957 Chevy Bel Air in the list makes me have to throw some shades of gray into it.
Yes, it is true that this model of car has way surpassed its intended scope. However… this doesn’t mean that the scope automatically is good enough to compete with modern standards.
2009 Chevy vs 1959 Chevy
So yes: old can be “good enough”. It hold together, and it runs… as does for instance some T55 tanks around the world. But that fact alone does not necessarily make it prudent or economical to use them.
/M
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:05 am
Michael Karnerfors said:
No, it’s not the safest thing around, but it’s gorgeous and if you want to go cruise on a balmy summer Saturday night, it’s unsurpassed.
Franck said:
That is true, but I’d also argue that the crash survivability of modern cars has really gone too far in the other direction. Having a car’s crumple zones crumple and the entire car get totaled in a 30 mph crash is acceptable. Any car will be totaled in that kind of crash anyway and so what matters is protecting the passengers.
What bothers me is that in most new cars, you can knock bumpers at two miles per hour and end up causing several thousand dollars worth of damage to the car. A few years ago I was out with my father in his car and someone at a stoplight didn’t hit their break quite hard enough and tapped the rear of his car, not badly at all – not even enough to spill a cup of coffee. Upon getting out and inspecting it, it had driven the bumper cover up and into the car such that the trunk would no longer open. Good thing we checked it out and got the guy’s insurance. They had to do an ungodly amount of work to get the rear end functional again.
That should not happen. A “bumper” is there because occasionally it will bump things and it should not fall apart if it does. One big problem is that these days they all seem to have a thin fiberglass cover. That’s the worst thing you can have for bumping. Fiberglass has no plasticity. It gives a little and then SNAP, it fractures in a complete failure. You can’t really repair it either. It’s not like you can hammer it out. You can kinda fix the fractures with resin and sheets, but it’s not a good repair.
If you look at older cars, they had strong fenders and bumpers. Dents can hammer out and if they can’t, these components were generally bolt-on so they could be replaced. Usually bumpers were unpainted and often they even had rubber guards on them. See here: http://www.genealogyintime.com/GenealogyResources/Wallpaper/Vintage_Car_Series_1/images/1957_Chevrolet_bumper.jpg
or here: http://bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/1957_Simca_Aronde_Plein_Ciel_Coupe_Rear_1.jpg
Note that the bumper is a seperate unit mounted on the back and that it actually has guards in the center in case a car rear-ends it.
Despite the fact that the above picture is gorgeous, it also shows that this thing was designed with the understanding that cars occasionally will slide into things and hitting something at a quarter of a mile an hour should not result in the car being totaled.
I should add that this is not universally true of new cars. There are a very few models that are still capable of being knocked around a little bit without shattering. The Crown Victoria comes to mind. Some of the Volvos from the 1990’s had excellent safety and were still solid enough to survive a fender bender without sustaining massive damage.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:57 am
Excellent post and all very true. There are many amplifiers and other systems used in communications that are as good as any despite being old. In some cases, even with the new digital systems for television or other use, the old amplifiers and antenna tuners will work just fine hooked up to the digital modulators.
I would add another category for test equipment. Things like spectrum analyzers and vector scopes and many other things. I would not go so far as to say that they are better than their modern equivalents, but they are still at least comparable and still very much in use. They’re heavier and generally more sturdy. For example the older HP spectrum analyzers do very well compared to new digital equipment, but if you wanted to get the same capability you’d end up paying more than ten thousand dollars.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:16 pm
All these are durable goods, things that cost lots of money and had to produce returns for the duration of the loans and programs that funded them.
You get what you pay for. There are plenty of examples of durable goods produced this day and age, they are simply very expensive. We just see many instances of inexpensive goods that have similar function that are made cheaply, thus cost much less. For example, machine tools are available for very low prices for the hobbyist, but wouldn’t hold up for more than a few days in a production environment. Cough up an order of magnitude more cash, then you can get something that will withstand the test of time.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Steve said:
Not necessarily. Your example of machine tooling is not quite accurate. Most of these units now come from the Far East and they just do not hold up the way older American made ones have. I have seen Korean jig-bores that have lost fine tolerance repeatability after a dozen years, while the U.S. one beside in the same shop, retrofitted with N/C controllers, that were 50yrs old, still working full time.
Production machinery is not as robust as it was in the past, both to keep down costs, and as a consequence of the current philosophy in commerce that plans only for short business-cycles. And there is some truth to this; in times of rapidly changing technology, sunken costs have to be kept to a minimum. It is very seldom that anything can become both state of the art and perfectly fill its market niche as well as meet the test of time.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Steve said:
I want to point out that there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to older/newer is better. I mean there are certainly plenty of new products that are better than the older ones and there are examples where they are no better or worse.
I’m really just pointing out a few examples of pieces of equipment that were so well done the first time that they’re basically impossible to improve upon or may even not be what they once were.
There are different reasons why something old might still be state-of-the-art:
Something like the AK-47, for example, is just such an elegant and well built design that for what it does, you’re going to have a hard time to do any better.
Something like the PRI Scintillator is still excellent because it was made out of the best materials and parts at the time and they’re just as high grade today because sodium-iodine crystals are not any different than they used to be.
Then there are some that were overbuilt and super capable for a reason, like the searchlights. These were built at huge expense during the early days of World War II because of the fact that they were needed to be as bright as possible to deal with a very real threat. Then they turned around and sold them at pennies compared to what the government spent because radar made them obsolete as defensive devices.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Drbuzz0: “I want to point out that there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to older/newer is better. I mean there are certainly plenty of new products that are better than the older ones and there are examples where they are no better or worse.
I’m really just pointing out a few examples of pieces of equipment that were so well done the first time that they’re basically impossible to improve upon or may even not be what they once were.”
I completely agree, just wanted to point out that the process is still on going, that we are still finding the “best” way of doing new things and folks will be looking back to a select few things we’ve done and marvel at their longevity.
-DV82XL, I beg you to reconsider that as a given. Many Japanese machine tools are considered the best machines built, ever. I fully expect brands such as Mori Seiki to last generations, but considering the incredible abuse they receive because of their sturdiness, you’ll see plenty in the scrap bin.
Great post, and great discussion!
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Steve said:
Well isn’t that statement pregnant with most of the reasons why I am glad I am retired. In my day “incredible abuse” and “scrap bin” were not a terms used in reference to high precision machine tooling.
However my point still stands, yes these units start out as very good machines – they just don’t last. I doubt that any of them will be running for half a century, like their predecessors did.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:57 pm
DV82XL said:
It will be fascinating to see what stands the test of time. I’m not certain many of the venerable work horse machines you mention would be able to withstand modern expectations of productivity, 20 hours per day, 7 days a week at maximum rated duty cycle, while holding minuscule tolerances, for as long as someone owes money on them.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Steve said:
I have witnessed some of them do just that, squeezing the most out of your assets is not something new, and many of the machines I knew were used for military production, which was indeed 24/7. I am not suggesting that they did not need the attention of millwrights on occasion, or didn’t require regular servicing, but they did not wear globally as badly as some modern examples I have seen.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:31 pm
DV82XL said:
I agree with the asset squeezing not being new, and “some modern examples.” The key word being some. I would like to suggest that “some” modern things will also stand the test of time, and I’m not prescient enough to guess which ones will.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Steve said:
Well then let us agree to revisit the topic in, say fifty years, when we will have some hard data to work with
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:47 pm
DV82XL said:
Agreed! Hopefully, we’ll withstand the test of time, 50 years is right on the edge of my actuarial lifetime!
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Steve said:
Well, it’s not an exclusively American or Western thing. Yes, I agree that there are things made in Japan or elsewhere that are of extremely high quality. I think the reference has more to do with the quintessential “made in china” product that you find at your local Walmart or whatever and has been made as cheap as possible and stamped out. It’s not like “Made in the USA” means quality either. My family had a Zenith television – the last brand to stop manufacture in the US and it was pretty damn shotty thing. When it broke (after just a few years) I opened it up to find the thinest gauge wire and shotty construction I’ve seen.
Another story from my family: My parents bought a television when they got married. A Sony Trinatron in the year 1978. That was the family television until the early 1990’s and was used pretty frequently. After that it was moved to the playroom where it was on a shelf and ended up falling off several times, landing flat on the floor from a fall of a good four or five feet. It’s now in my brother’s room in my parent’s house. Still works and has as good a picture as any standard-def SDTV.
Anyway, that’s anecdotal, I know, but Sony built their stuff very well in the 1970’s and 1980’s, although less so these days. In the postwar era, Japan got a reputation for producing crappy fall-apart products and eventually the companies realized this and this caused them to really work to overdo quality in the 70’s and 80’s to win back a descent reputation – which can be very hard to do.
Now mind you, this post is not just about things that last a long time and are durable, but examples of where the capabilities of an old technology are as good as or better than new. Something like the DC-3 is simply the best plane to transport a few tons of cargo to a landing strip in Alaska. It was in 1940 and it is now, even despite all the progress made since then in aviation. The PCC is about the best street car going today as it was when it first rolled out.
When it comes to stuff that is overbuilt there are a few areas where you see it a lot: Stuff made in Russia has a reputation for being overbuilt; anything that is mil-spec; stuff intended for use in railroad applications.
Quote Comment
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:35 am
DV82XL said:
I suppose “abuse” of high precision machine tools would be the kind of thing that ought to get someone fired, but there are plenty of things that take abuse because of no one person’s fault. Given the example of the streetcar, what kind of public transportation vehicle is not going to take a lot of abuse from passengers and occasionally a driver who is a bit heavy handed with the break? Something like an AK-47 is bound to get abuse sometimes. It’s not like these are restricted to indoor shooting ranges. In a battle they could easily have to get dragged through dirty environments and go for long periods without getting broken down for a proper cleaning.
Quote Comment
February 4th, 2010 at 7:34 am
Well the eternall Ma Deuce and M1911 brought to you by Saint John Moses Browning have allready been mentioned. Than there is also
Mosin Nagnant rifle – even century old ones are still good and is very popular civilian rifle now, with cult like following in USA
AN-2 – cargo biplane made after II.WW? Well it worked and is still in use thanks to it’s reability.
Willys Jeep
Land Rover Defender
FN FAL
Quote Comment
February 6th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
I come out of railroad structural engineering. This field can be described thus: A highway engineer will say, “Why put six boats into this structural steel connection when only four are required for strength?” whereas the RRSE will say, “Why put six bolts into this connection when there’s room foir eight?” That’s one of the reasons why railroad bridges over 110 years old are still carrying trains safely.
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2010 at 11:34 am
You’re gonna mention the Proton rocket, but not the R-7 family? The R-7 is much older (really, it’s the original ICBM, though its use of kerosene made it impractical for rapid response, much like the American Atlas that answered it) and actually sees wider use than Proton today. The family is rather unique, having a typically cylindrical core stage and second stage, but with liquid-fueled strap-on boosters with a distinctive slanted cone shape. Today it is known as the Soyuz rocket. It is older than the Soyuz capsule you mentioned, and serves a wide range of customers. Variants have been named “Vostok” and “Molniya” as well, due to their association with those spacecraft, and the modern one came to be known as “Soyuz”, but they are all really just variations on the same basic design. It’s very effective, and more reliable than Proton (but less powerful, so Proton does the heavy lifting).
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Yeah, I wasn’t entirely sure whether or not I should include that. The “Soyuz” rocket is not, strictly speaking, an R-7. It’s a member of the R-7 family. The rockets are not actually old – the design is, but not the hardware. Although, you could say the same of the C-130. There are new C-130’s even-though the design is old.
Soyuz-FG is considered a member of the R-7 family, but it’s lengthened, it has additional upper stage elements and, of course, there are many minor updates to the system – even if the design is basically the same, control and telemetry systems now use IC’s and not analog data transmitters and vacuum tubes.
Although, you could also say the same about Proton. Even if the Proton rocket is basically the same, it would also have updated electronics and such..
So… call that an honorable mention?
It’s not always a cut and dry kind of thing…
Quote Comment
February 12th, 2010 at 8:05 am
I agree completely, a lot of the old stuff was built to last.
I have an old wheel loader, a backloader called Volvo BM 222 that’s almost 50 years old. The BM series was very popular, but mine is a bit of a rare model, with only 39 made. Though the paint job doesn’t look as good as when it rolled out of the factory and it has some bumps and bruises, it works as good as when it was new (at least it will when I get a new battery). I love my BM222, and it’s a pure pleasure to move snow with it.
Best of all: It will work as well in 50 years, as it’s all mechanical and can be repaired. The wheel loaders made today have lots of electronics, and within a few decades, spare components will not be possible to find, but my wheel loader is “heavy metal”, all mechanics, nothing fancy, and if something should break, a new part can be improvised by just about any decent mechanic.
Quote Comment
February 17th, 2010 at 11:33 am
This is interesting, thanks for your info.
Quote Comment