If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   I am Jack's actuarial miscalculation   (money.cnn.com) divider line 12
    More: Scary, crash tests  
•       •       •

13909 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2014 at 5:44 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-21 07:37:06 PM
2 votes:

krelborne: Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.


almost spot on.

my csb:
Used to work in a place that made transmissions for an un-named American auto manufacturer.  We had a problem.  Several thousand units got out with a failure called "jump out".  Essentially the synchros that engage/disengage gears had a stack height problem.  The car could jump in or out of gear by itself.  worse you could theoretically shift into reverse at 50 mph.  Extraordinarily dangerous.  They calculated not only the cost of the deaths and damage but also the cost of reputation if we admitted that there was an issue.  I was stunned by the lack of humanity in any of the decision making process.  They decided Fark those people.  When units would show up on warranty for repair we would claim operator abuse and deny the repair so we never had to admit the problem we knew existed.  The NTSB was waved off as Obama was bailing out our customer at the time.  No one died that I know of but.....
2014-02-21 06:38:38 PM
2 votes:
Which company do you work for?

A major one.


Well, now we know which one
2014-02-21 05:50:50 PM
2 votes:

krelborne: Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.


That's pretty much what happened at Ford with the Pinto back in the 70's  They calculated the cost of installing fuel system safety features ($25 per car), and then calculated the cost of paying out settlements for people who were Flambéd while riding in a Pinto.  Total estimated cost of settlements to families of crispy-critters. was lower.   Light me, Johnny.
2014-02-21 04:37:24 PM
2 votes:
Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
2014-02-21 08:16:41 PM
1 votes:

aspAddict: My CSB:

I used to work for a company that built large scale automated welders. One of our clients wanted a welder that could take sheets of metal and bend/weld them into rims for large John Deere tractors and other oversize vehicles. The welder itself had a design flaw that would leave about 25-30% of the weld below spec. The left side of the weld would be perfectly fine, but the right quarter would fail stress testing.

I pointed out what I thought the issue was to the mechanical engineer (Russian guy) and he pretty much said, "Yeah, you're right - but it would cost too much to fix it at this point." When I asked him about failures in the field, he paused for a minute, then said "Eh, I'll be back in Russia by then."


From what I am have heard so far, every recall we hear about, there are two other problems with your car waiting to kill you that the engineers knew about before production was started.

The same guy who told me about the GM 3.1 and 3.4 V6 motor issue, told me how he caught a problem caused by another engineer which that engineer went into a major meltdown about my friend finding something wrong with his work.  I wonder how many other projects the hot headed engineer screwed up and no one would go against him.
2014-02-21 07:48:18 PM
1 votes:
My CSB:

I used to work for a company that built large scale automated welders. One of our clients wanted a welder that could take sheets of metal and bend/weld them into rims for large John Deere tractors and other oversize vehicles. The welder itself had a design flaw that would leave about 25-30% of the weld below spec. The left side of the weld would be perfectly fine, but the right quarter would fail stress testing.

I pointed out what I thought the issue was to the mechanical engineer (Russian guy) and he pretty much said, "Yeah, you're right - but it would cost too much to fix it at this point." When I asked him about failures in the field, he paused for a minute, then said "Eh, I'll be back in Russia by then."
2014-02-21 07:39:25 PM
1 votes:

Jim DiGriz: ElLoco: krelborne: Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

You sound capitalist.

(Tried to work fartbamacare and Nazis in there... but my thinking thing is already turned off for Friday night.)

That was a direct quote from the movie version of "Fight Club".

/I have no idea if it's in the book, I haven't read it yet.


Almost the entire movie is a direct quote from the book.

//most faithful adaptation from page to cinema evar.
2014-02-21 07:32:20 PM
1 votes:
Prius owners still smug, Yaris owners still parallel-parking in half-spaces between huge penis-trucks simply to prove they can, Ford 500 owners still elderly.
2014-02-21 07:25:26 PM
1 votes:
Well done, Subby.
2014-02-21 07:00:31 PM
1 votes:

lordargent: Fissile: That's pretty much what happened at Ford with the Pinto back in the 70's  They calculated the cost of installing fuel system safety features ($25 per car), and then calculated the cost of paying out settlements for people who were Flambéd while riding in a Pinto.  Total estimated cost of settlements to families of crispy-critters. was lower.   Light me, Johnny.

1) Install system
2) Run a hard hitting commercial showing burned out cars, with charred dolls and toy fire trucks and shiat, mention the fuel safety systems
3) End with the phrase "don't get burned".
*) Hell, charge more than the $25 it cost.


Interestingly, Ford was a pioneer in automobile passenger safety back in the 1950s.   In the 50s Ford promoted safety features that were offered on their cars, usually as options (the feds didn't require much at the time).  Lap belts, padded dashboards (most car dashboards were steel), collapsing steering columns and the like.  The people running GM at the time went berserk, and threatened to sue Ford for implying that GM cars were not safe. As far as GM was concerned,  it was understood that motoring was a safe undertaking, and therefore was no reason for needlessly alarming the public about auto safety.

Ah, the good 'ol days, when we didn't have any of that pesky regulation.
2014-02-21 06:19:01 PM
1 votes:

krelborne: Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.


img.fark.net
2014-02-21 06:11:15 PM
1 votes:

ElLoco: krelborne: Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

You sound capitalist.

(Tried to work fartbamacare and Nazis in there... but my thinking thing is already turned off for Friday night.)


That was a direct quote from the movie version of "Fight Club".

/I have no idea if it's in the book, I haven't read it yet.
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report