Hacker News Reader

Comment by femto | Hacker News Reader

The results for Toyota are a reflection of their dedication to production engineering [1], dented by recent recalls. The popular view of bleeding-edge engineering is putting exciting new features into customer's hands. An alternative view (which can be just as satisfying from an engineering perspective) is creating a bleeding-edge factory to produce millions of otherwise mundane products that "just work". As an aside, there's a certain smugness (and sense of power?) that goes with producing a product that the end user takes for granted but you know that few other people could produce.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Production_System

View on HN

> there's a certain smugness (and sense of power?)

Yes! I have had this idea floating in my head for a while now. At some point opening a can of soda I experienced this wave of humility. Sitting there mindlessly drinking sugar water for the zillionth time and finally realizing the achievement of engineering necessary for that mundane experience. The aluminum is recycled. It's a continuous cycle that obviates the need to clean glassware. Later I learned about the design of the pull tab mechanism. It's pretty sophisticated. It's specifically designed to have two operating states. You usually experience them when opening a can of soda if you're paying attention. It replaced the removable tab that caused littering and slightly sub-optimal recycling efficiency. It's a very subtle design change that likely required massive overhauls in manufacturing equipment.

Here's a video on soda can design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUhisi2FBuw

Wow. That was an awesome video. Thank you. I didn't know why the top had a neck. Further efficiency apparently. He has an excellent explanation of the two-mode pull tab towards the end. Direct link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUhisi2FBuw&t=508

I hated that original pull tab design as a kid. Those sharp edges were vicious.

This might interest you:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8098146

I think, also, that Toyota still seems to understand the idea of a long-term investment. Other brands seem to be seeking the "short term fix" that will sell more cars this year, in search of immediate profits.

Hats off to Toyota. We're still driving our Prius 12 years after buying it, it's been a great car.

Our Prius has been going 14 years now. I've had to replace the battery once (last year) but otherwise has been a remarkably comfortable and reliable car. It's just a shame the new Prius models are so ugly.

I've had my scion for 11 years. Maintenance cost other than tires and oil - virtually zero. They use chains instead of belts too so I didn't even need to change the timing belt.

My '94 Saturn had a timing chain instead of a belt, which was awesome until the chain broke. Due to it being metal it shattered and fused itself in various parts of my engine, destroying the whole thing. Instead of having to pay for a new timing belt, I paid $2,500 for a new engine.

It's usually not much better if a timing belt snaps either. Two valves can't occupy the same space at the same time, so often you get shattered metal everywhere anyways. The difference is that timing chain failures are rare, timing belt failures are expected.

The country I live in owners change the timing belt before recommended date or else they pretty much can't sell the car for the price they want. It's a bid deal. So much so, that when I sold a car last year I was getting somewhat irritated by the question of it having been done or not (said so in the ad, tyre kickers don't know what else to ask about).

It's actually a valve and a piston you have to worry about. At normal engine speeds the valves will simply snap shut if the cam stops spinning.

Valves slapping piston is generally only a worry with an interference engine design.[1]

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_engine

Yeah, I was thinking of interference engines, especially OHC/OHV Interference designs. "Timing belt failure" is deeply anchored to Honda engines in my mind, which are pretty much all interference.

My '08 Honda Fit may be interference, but it also has a timing chain that /should/ require no maintenance for the life of the car.

There is a reason that Toyota completely dominates in most Of Africa - their cars just last and last in harsh environments. In addition, the mechanics are simple and not overly electronic in nature, meaning that the car can be relatively easily maintained without needing highly specialised equipment.

There's also a "network effect" at play: because Toyota's are already plentiful, spare parts are easier to come by and much cheaper for Toyota compared to any other manufacturer, thus encouraging people to buy yet more Toyota's.

They are special Africa versions though. Engines that burn less clean, much simpler electronics... You can buy them in the EU but only for export.

Toyota Hilux is the "AK-47" of military vehicles.

>An alternative view...is creating a bleeding-edge factory...

This is not what Toyota does. VW does this[1]. Tesla does this[2]. But not Toyota [3].

Watch those videos. Which ones are full of robots and computers? Which ones are all manual labor? My tone should give it away.

The Toyota Production System link you cite was heavily developed by Taiichi Ohno. You can learn more in his 1978 book: "Toyota Production System". There's a whole chapter on procurement. Taiichi san's very, very strong belief is:

  When purchasing new equipment, we must consider buying the
  minimum capable of meeting our requirements. Reliability and
  ease of maintenance should be considered before features.
  Bells and whistles can often be added later if the need 
  arises. We want to avoid buying features "just in case." We   
  must consider up-time, utilization and quality factors when 
  making equipment choices.

Further emphasis is put on making old equipment last longer. Less 'bleeding edge'. More 'minimum viable' meets 'minimum risk'.

Design emphasis is very conservative. Material choice is very conservative. You will not find innovation. You will find reliability. You will find simplification. You will find repeatability. As far as risk goes, Toyota is the bond market of the automotive industry.

They make a vehicle in nearly every category. It is a standout in none of them. The engines are bulkier. They are less fuel efficient. They underperform in nearly every metric. They are costly for their performance specs. But they last.

The interesting thing about their production line system is how much is focused on the people on the line rather than automating the process on the line. It's the YC version of "Talk to your users" - except applied to workers on the line. Most companies try to automate this step out. Toyota does remove their workers - but only to get more training. This English translation[4] of a Le Monde artice from a few years ago goes into extensive detail about the "Takumi" system of training master craftsmen.

Toyota gets a lot of deserved credit for making great products - how they make those products is frequently misunderstood - famously so by Detroit in the '80's. Their process is counter-intuitive and worth a study. I recommend starting with Taiichi's book mentioned above.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlIyDhss4Cg

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOXaBto7giY

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg5RlapdEtE

[4] http://www.worldcrunch.com/tech-science/takumi-toyota-039-s-...

[5] http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2014/08/18/face-aux-r...

> Toyota gets a lot of deserved credit for making great products - how they make those products is frequently misunderstood - famously so by Detroit in the '80's.

There is an great podcast episode by This American Life about NUMMI, the joint venture between Toyota and GM in 1984. Very well worth the listen: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/561/n...

Too bad their overall engineering and manufacturing quality is let down by two factors: The cars are uncomfortable for tall people. The body rusts a lot faster than some competition. (Highlighted by the otherwise high reliability)

Both would seem to be relatively trivial issues to fix. After all, many other manufacturers have done that.

Most people in the world aren't tall. It'd seem counter intuitive to create a car specifically so it can fit such a small group of people.

But for the tall buyers it's close to a deal breaker. It's not like I'm 2 meters, just slightly above average in my country. I love Japanese manufacturing, engineering and design. I have three Japanese guitars. However it's less likely I will ever buy a Toyota. Attitudes can change but I'm not going to get any shorter soon.

In today's world the brands resemble each other a lot, and are in fierce competition about some percentage points of fuel consumption, to the point of cheating. But most of the things that are mentioned in the advertisements or reviews don't matter if the seat is slightly uncomfortable, or you have to bend your knees a little bit more, or your shoe scratches the foot space ceiling if you're not careful. Indeed, a cramped car can scuff your leather shoe. How is it not possible to find a few centimeters more in a vehicle that's 4 meters long? It makes me feel they are either incompetent or just don't plain care. Compare that to something like even eighties-nineties vintage Volkswagen Golfs. They are not big cars, but I wouldn't even keep the driver's seat all the way back - they had excess space. Bliss. Every car has it's assortment of design mistakes, you just get to choose what they are. It's a bit counter intuitive considering how many billions are spent per model, but I guess the designers still have a self centered approach.

This is why as a tall person I'm not fond of 'world' cars. Americans on whole /are/ tall.

Yep, so true. The Toyota Tacoma is a great pickup but my head nearly hits the roof when I'm sitting in it.

> You will not find innovation. You will find reliability. You will find simplification. You will find repeatability.

As a consumer, I consider all of those qualities to be valuable forms of innovation. Techno-innovation for novelty's sake does not provide real value but it makes for great marketing. I'll keep my boring Toyota because it is superior to others in many innovative ways.

> It is a standout in none of them.

Except perhaps the Prius? It is a jalopy for sure, but did the hybrid very well, when most hybrids were done very poorly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com