justalurker wrote:Chumly wrote:Good points, I love small engines! Although with modern plastic forming I can't imagine there is any real cost savings over the conventional friction fit male nipple, but I'm no designer / cost analyzer.
No need to be a designer/cost analyzer...
Eliminating a nipple that costs $.01 over a 100,000 unit production run saves big $$$.
Same as embedding control, sound, video, modem, and NI chips on computer motherboards and eliminating the unique cards previously used to do those jobs.
Lower prices... the market asked for it, they got it, and now we all have to live with the compromises.
I would argue that the complex expensive and fancy packaging would be the place for this presupposed .01 / unit costs savings to be aptly applied and not in a poorly thought out feature that may bring poor reliability and safety issues with so little potential savings.
The US auto industry has followed this trend for some time, to their deficit as compared to the Japanese, given that if US trucks were not such a big sales success, the US auto industry would be up the poop-shoot without a roll of toilet paper.
And as for on board video / audio on modern motherboards two things at-the-least come to mind:
1) The cost differences to add video / audio is rather low so it makes a great selling feature and marketing feature more than it makes a cost savings argument against separate higher spec cards
2) Many people (perhaps most?) still buy separate audio and video cards for a number of reasons. The mobo introduces audio artifacts and has poorer ADA's than the separate card, Separate video cards provide similar arguments in terms of better res for gaming etc
I suggest that if what you say is true about the actual savings per unit on the weed whackers in question being one penny each, that it's a false economy as compared to the alternatives, and as discussed the US auto industry is a prime example
Also I am not in any way convinced that "the market asked for it" in terms of the lowest cost to the extent that you imply.
Why?
Because if true people would be driven by cost considerations alone and this is hardly the case! Witness BMW and Porsche; and before you go telling me that you cannot market a week whacker under the premise of reliability and build and safety worthiness again look to the Japanese autos for your answer.
That is not to say there is not a place for the lowest cost supplier, but again I would argue not in this case, not when it comes to gasoline / ignition sources / safety.
That is why (in part) we have the CSA / UL and related agencies. That is why, as you may have noticed, we have the the big recall on kid's toys with lead paint.
I say that style of fuel feed is damn crazy and cannot be adequately rationalized.
Your claim that "Lower prices... the market asked for it, they got it, and now we all have to live with the compromises" is specious. Your logic of blaming the market and not the manufacturer is false.