AEC V8

carryfast · 12 March 2014 00:28

[zb]
anorak:

Saviem:
…I would not conclude that any country in the World would have had “better” engineers…but that they, (and particularly post WW2 Europe), had better “enviroments” for those engineering brains to flex their expertise in is undeniable…

Cheerio for now.

I would not disagree with the background arguments you quote, leading to the conclusion that GB has been a poor environment for engineers. One factor you do not mention is that European countries require engineers to have completed the necessary education before they are allowed to practice, just like doctors. Typically, this takes until age 25 or older, at which point you are at the start! In Britain, you can call yourself an engineer with no training or education at all. I have dealt with charlatans like this on many an occasion- most of the time, they can “wing it” on what they have picked up along the way, but they will never contribute to an improvement in a product or process. They hold the job up and the wage down. Experience alone is not enough, if progress is the goal.

The result of all of it is that British people who are clever enough to cope with the intellectual rigour of a proper engineering education are usually clever enough to do something easier and/or more lucrative. The result of that is that GB has a paucity of engineering talent, and the result of that is exemplified by the subject of this thread.

I’m off to glug a glass or two of mediocre ersatz claret.

I’d really liked to have seen what happened if you’d have walked into a REME field workshop during WW2 and told teenaged engineers like my father who were busy getting the country out of the zb,when they weren’t out there under fire recovering knocked out tanks and having to face the results of that,before starting work on them to get them back into service,that they were charlatans in your view.

newmercman · 12 March 2014 01:04

Yes but necessity is the mother of invention, war time engineering is in a different league to commercial engineering. That’s not to say it didn’t work, in much the same way as ‘engineering’ keeps things running in Africa, Russia and Cuba to name a few places, however it’s not often a beautifully machined job with near zero tolerances, but crude and effective, it does the job though

carryfast · 12 March 2014 01:26

newmercman:
Yes but necessity is the mother of invention, war time engineering is in a different league to commercial engineering. That’s not to say it didn’t work, in much the same way as ‘engineering’ keeps things running in Africa, Russia and Cuba to name a few places, however it’s not often a beautifully machined job with near zero tolerances, but crude and effective, it does the job though

I’ve not used a lathe or a mill for well over 35 years now but I reckon that I could still meet tenths of a thou tolerances and that’s not CNC I’m talking about because I wouldn’t know where to start with one. Or at least probably tun out a few test pieces to at least as good if not better standards than ZB could being that he’s obviously one of the best at the job.I never got near to finishing my training though and I would never have made anything like the engineer my father was because he was an engineer who just drove trucks as part of the job.While in my case it was vice versa.IE making Molins guns at the age of 14 ( no time then for much training it was a case of get on with it and make it right because lives will depend on it ).Like drivers engineers are born not trained.

zb_anorak · 12 March 2014 07:48

The above lunacy illustrates my point quite well. In GB, people still have the quaint notion that an engineer operates a machine. The truth is that a qualified engineer works with his head, not his hands. His (or her) work goes on well before the swarf-monger gets his hands on the job, underpins that job and is the most critical part of the job’s chances of being a success. Ask anyone who has completed the course- it is 50% maths and 5% practical. The rest is applied theory.

This argument, of course, is a generalisation- a statistical average. There are always exceptions, like the chap who wrote the report that inspired this branch of the thread in the first place. More of his type on the job, working before even the first drawings found their way down to the workshops, might have designed an engine which was not 10dB too loud.

gingerfold · 12 March 2014 10:32

I recall that when it was announced by AEC / Leyland that the V8 engine project was being scrapped the two reasons given were high noise levels and excessive exhaust emissions. From my own memories of observing AEC V8s in service the engine didn’t seem to be any noisier than some other contemporary engines, nor was it obviously smokier than others. However, from the report in question undoubtedly the engine was too loud under laboratory test conditions (to meet future noise levels legislation) and from the engineer carrying out the tests he states that engine noise is a direct consequence of piston bowl / combustion chamber design, and of course so is exhaust emissions. This begs a couple of questions. Firstly if the information about piston bowl / combustion chamber was freely available then why didn’t the AEC designers take this on board at the engine design stage? Secondly, a re-design of the said piston bowl / combustion chamber to reduce noise and emission levels would not have necessitated an expensive or difficult alteration, so why wasn’t it done? And as another observation why submit a finished engine for noise testing if it had been designed by disregarding some parameters of engineering wisdom known at the time. The words “horses and stable doors” spring to mind.

acd1202 · 12 March 2014 11:04

These comments have thrown up the real problem with getting young people to take up engineering in the UK and that is ignorance. Their parents and teachers don’t know the difference between mechanics, machine operators and engineers. As anorak has said engineers use pens and paper and these days CAD design programs. I know one Cambridge graduate chartered engineer who will go from one year end to the next without picking up a spanner, but if you drive a petrol powered Ford focus she probably had a big hand in designing its engine.

Secondly, according to a report for the government careers service, published on their website; an engineering degree brings with it the third highest average lifetime earnings expectation, after medicine and architecture, surprisingly law doesn’t get into the top 10.

kr79 · 12 March 2014 11:27

I think a big problem in the UK we see engineers as a Fred Dibnah type character in a boiler suit in a shed full of lathes and anvils wheras somewhere like germany you think i quiet thoughtful gent in frameless glasses in a whitle sterile laboratry setting with computers and highly technical machinery.
Both have there place but in vehicle design especaly these days its the latter needed more.

zb_anorak · 12 March 2014 20:08

gingerfold:
I recall that when it was announced by AEC / Leyland that the V8 engine project was being scrapped the two reasons given were high noise levels and excessive exhaust emissions.

The impending noise regulations, and the results of the tests, were probably the final nail in the coffin. It gave Leyland an easy way out, without having to announce the other problems to the world.

gingerfold:
From my own memories of observing AEC V8s in service the engine didn’t seem to be any noisier than some other contemporary engines, nor was it obviously smokier than others. However, from the report in question undoubtedly the engine was too loud under laboratory test conditions (to meet future noise levels legislation) and from the engineer carrying out the tests he states that engine noise is a direct consequence of piston bowl / combustion chamber design, and of course so is exhaust emissions. This begs a couple of questions. Firstly if the information about piston bowl / combustion chamber was freely available then why didn’t the AEC designers take this on board at the engine design stage?

There must not have been anyone there with the relevant knowledge.

gingerfold:
Secondly, a re-design of the said piston bowl / combustion chamber to reduce noise and emission levels would not have necessitated an expensive or difficult alteration, so why wasn’t it done?

On top of the cooling problem and the short crank journal life, the combustion chamber and fuel injection issues seem almost incidental. It really did look like a “back to the drawing board” job, from top to bottom.

gingerfold:
And as another observation why submit a finished engine for noise testing if it had been designed by disregarding some parameters of engineering wisdom known at the time. The words “horses and stable doors” spring to mind.

Again, the designers just did not know or understand enough to predict the problems. You would not blame Leyland for pulling the plug on it, given that, by the time they had gathered all of this bad news, all of their competitors had (variously) successful 300+bhp engines in production.

carryfast · 12 March 2014 22:04

[zb]
anorak:
The above lunacy illustrates my point quite well. In GB, people still have the quaint notion that an engineer operates a machine. The truth is that a qualified engineer works with his head, not his hands. His (or her) work goes on well before the swarf-monger gets his hands on the job, underpins that job and is the most critical part of the job’s chances of being a success. Ask anyone who has completed the course- it is 50% maths and 5% practical. The rest is applied theory.

This argument, of course, is a generalisation- a statistical average. There are always exceptions, like the chap who wrote the report that inspired this branch of the thread in the first place. More of his type on the job, working before even the first drawings found their way down to the workshops, might have designed an engine which was not 10dB too loud.

The inconvenient fact for your idea is that engineering involves many disciplines and they are all as important as each other.IE the design engineer’s work won’t be any good whatsoever without the machinists,fabricators,toolmakers/fitters,and all the rest to turn what’s contained in his head and what he puts onto paper or a computer screen,into reality in the form of the finished product.Ironically it’s probably more likely that a hands on ‘engineer’ who’s born to use their hands ( and brain ) to actually make stuff will also make a better ‘design’ engineer than a design ‘engineer’ would make a hands on one.IE I think the Wright brothers were more the former than the latter.In which case I’d say that you’ve got your priorities,as to who,and who isn’t,a ‘real’ engineer,the wrong way round.

carryfast · 12 March 2014 22:10

kr79:
I think a big problem in the UK we see engineers as a Fred Dibnah type character in a boiler suit in a shed full of lathes and anvils wheras somewhere like germany you think i quiet thoughtful gent in frameless glasses in a whitle sterile laboratry setting with computers and highly technical machinery.
Both have there place but in vehicle design especaly these days its the latter needed more.

Trust me if you’re going back to the time of the AEC V8 especially in British factories a real ‘engineer’ would know how to use his hands to make what the head designer in the drawing office has put on paper and you can forget all about CNC machinery.With it being more likely that the engineers using the machines can work to better tolerances than the worn out machines are capable of holding.With those like ZB probably blaming the workers for that.

saviem · 12 March 2014 22:16

I would not disagree with the background arguments you quote, leading to the conclusion that GB has been a poor environment for engineers. One factor you do not mention is that European countries require engineers to have completed the necessary education before they are allowed to practice, just like doctors. Typically, this takes until age 25 or older, at which point you are at the start! In Britain, you can call yourself an engineer with no training or education at all. I have dealt with charlatans like this on many an occasion- most of the time, they can “wing it” on what they have picked up along the way, but they will never contribute to an improvement in a product or process. They hold the job up and the wage down. Experience alone is not enough, if progress is the goal.

The result of all of it is that British people who are clever enough to cope with the intellectual rigour of a proper engineering education are usually clever enough to do something easier and/or more lucrative. The result of that is that GB has a paucity of engineering talent, and the result of that is exemplified by the subject of this thread.

I’m off to glug a glass or two of mediocre ersatz claret.
[/quote]
Evening all, Anorak, Gentlemen, it would seem to me that we are all, (lamentably), singing from the same Hymn sheet!

Education has failed Great Britain, the greatest scandal, and emasculation of our (latent) talent Perhaps the greatest crime ever perpetrated upon our young sters from the 60s onwards…

The “dumbing down” of syllabus`s, so that “everyone” can succeed in whatever subject.

The removal of “competitiveness”, in favour of the (false) notion of equality in ( achievable), performance.

The concentration upon “arts” based subjects in the classroom, ignoring the real world outside.

It really hit me hard when working in Europe in the 70s just how well prepared for the world of business, (and I include “real” engineering, as defined by Anorak, and others), youngsters leaving European “higher education”, (and I exclude for this time Universities, because those standards were/are, far higher than ours), were for the real world of work. And they were anxious to achieve, their ambitions were stimulated, not stultified as those of UK educated young people.

As pointed out in various posts above, an Engineer does not have to be a “boiler suited spanner man”…but that is how he is perceived by the (dross), people within Education,(to the absolute detriment of potential recruitment) and even worse the Media. The latter surely the receptical of the true “no hoper/tyre kicker”…talks a good job…but could never do one!

So as Anorak concludes there was/are a paucity of engineers available from the UK…but the talent is there…it always was…at the worst we are the equal off, and mostly better than the rest…but why, oh why, can the UK successfully “kick its own goolies” each and every time■■?

In sadness I shall indulge in a pint or two of Banks`s Mild tonight…the moon is out to light my way up the lane, and the air is crisp and cool, just right for walking, and John, at the New Inns keeps his beer well…and we can reminisce about the road to Sicily…for he did it in a Scania 80, and Volvo F89, but me in well engineered British Fodens!

Cheerio for now.

carryfast · 12 March 2014 22:16

acd1202:
These comments have thrown up the real problem with getting young people to take up engineering in the UK and that is ignorance. Their parents and teachers don’t know the difference between mechanics, machine operators and engineers. As anorak has said engineers use pens and paper and these days CAD design programs. I know one Cambridge graduate chartered engineer who will go from one year end to the next without picking up a spanner, but if you drive a petrol powered Ford focus she probably had a big hand in designing its engine.

Secondly, according to a report for the government careers service, published on their website; an engineering degree brings with it the third highest average lifetime earnings expectation, after medicine and architecture, surprisingly law doesn’t get into the top 10.

So your design graduates have designed all the angles and stresses and written it all down in the form of a computer screen image ( or drawing at this time ) and you’ve got the nerve to say that those who actually turn that into reality aren’t engineers.

saviem · 12 March 2014 22:25

So your design graduates have designed all the angles and stresses and written it all down in the form of a computer screen image ( or drawing at this time ) and you’ve got the nerve to say that those who actually turn that into reality aren’t engineers.
[/quote]
No, you simply do not comprehend the definition…

they, (of whom you talk), are skilled Artisans…in itself a noble occupation…but not Engineers in the true definition of the word.

Please remove the chip from your shoulder…and if it is a Mc Cain one cook it before digesting…

Im away, my beer awaits, and I relish the walk, beer, and company…

Adieu.

zb_anorak · 12 March 2014 22:33

Carryfast:

acd1202:
These comments have thrown up the real problem with getting young people to take up engineering in the UK and that is ignorance. Their parents and teachers don’t know the difference between mechanics, machine operators and engineers. As anorak has said engineers use pens and paper and these days CAD design programs. I know one Cambridge graduate chartered engineer who will go from one year end to the next without picking up a spanner, but if you drive a petrol powered Ford focus she probably had a big hand in designing its engine.

Secondly, according to a report for the government careers service, published on their website; an engineering degree brings with it the third highest average lifetime earnings expectation, after medicine and architecture, surprisingly law doesn’t get into the top 10.

So your design graduates have designed all the angles and stresses and written it all down in the form of a computer screen image ( or drawing at this time ) and you’ve got the nerve to say that those who actually turn that into reality aren’t engineers.

That is correct. They are whatever they are- toolmakers, smiths, sheet-metalworkers, fabricators, boilermakers, cabinetmakers, stonemasons, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers. If you are any good at any of those trades, that is what you will call yourself.

carryfast · 12 March 2014 22:48

Saviem:
I would not disagree with the background arguments you quote, leading to the conclusion that GB has been a poor environment for engineers. One factor you do not mention is that European countries require engineers to have completed the necessary education before they are allowed to practice, just like doctors. Typically, this takes until age 25 or older, at which point you are at the start! In Britain, you can call yourself an engineer with no training or education at all. I have dealt with charlatans like this on many an occasion- most of the time, they can “wing it” on what they have picked up along the way, but they will never contribute to an improvement in a product or process. They hold the job up and the wage down. Experience alone is not enough, if progress is the goal.

The result of all of it is that British people who are clever enough to cope with the intellectual rigour of a proper engineering education are usually clever enough to do something easier and/or more lucrative. The result of that is that GB has a paucity of engineering talent, and the result of that is exemplified by the subject of this thread.

I’m off to glug a glass or two of mediocre ersatz claret.

Evening all, Anorak, Gentlemen, it would seem to me that we are all, (lamentably), singing from the same Hymn sheet!