Irreducible Complexities

[gear_dawg]

I have been thinking for a while now as to the possibility for designing things that are easier to work on for motors in cars. one of my thoughts was about irreducible complexities. I know that some things cant be broken down or simplified further, and in retrospect, was wondering if some of you had any ideas as to what those are and what they arent.

Also ideas would be good to discuss here... if ya want.

Gear

[autogyro]

I have been thinking for a while now as to the possibility for designing things that are easier to work on for motors in cars. one of my thoughts was about irreducible complexities. I know that some things cant be broken down or simplified further, and in retrospect, was wondering if some of you had any ideas as to what those are and what they arent.

Also ideas would be good to discuss here... if ya want.

Gear

Irreducible complexities cannot exist in the known Universe because everything is in a state of continual change through time that naturally changes complexity, even just by the time variation.
It is human arrogance that tries to define such a thing, based on the inability of human intelligence to understand and define the evolution of any such system in nature. In machines the designer is human and so it is limited to this human level of intelligence in regard to any such machines complexity.
Human intelligence is not the only 'inteligence' and there is an over all intelligence in the Universe which is at the heart of evolution through time. From our human perspective this is the ability of everything in the Universe to interact with everything else and develop through change.
This could be a wider definition of life, after all as humans we do not know yet what life really is. We only again use our arrogance to define it and let science continually change the goalposts with facts, which alter and are not 'truth'.
Of course religion still has the last laugh because there is and can not be a definition of that which created the Universe. This is why there can be no such thing as an Atheist only Agnostics.
Unfortunately to many modern people suffer from Dawkins overload. They should realize that just like the church and Islam etc, Dawkins is only after self promotion, fame and fortune. They should in effect 'grow up' and stop following fashion to be cool.
Unfortunately I do not see any connection with the philosophy of irreducible complexities and any scientific discipline, so I fail to see how it relates to F1 engineering.

[Richard]

Manufacturers already have them in those black boxes that the technicians are trained to unplug and replace.

Personally, I'd rather take the box apart and fix the reducible complexities inside.

[F1_eng]

Richard, a fair comment but for most cases, these days it is way cheaper to replace the component.

Imagine a gearbox rebuild on a modern automatic gearbox at a labour rate of £120/hour. The end cost would be astronomical.

[Giblet]

Richard, a fair comment but for most cases, these days it is way cheaper to replace the component.

Imagine a gearbox rebuild on a modern automatic gearbox at a labour rate of £120/hour. The end cost would be astronomical.

Your start cost is astronomical!

Some very expensive rates there.

It's closer to $80-$100cdn here per hour, taking into account the current conversion of £120 to $209.09cdn, it might be cheaper to ship your car over here for service

Even if you just pulled that number out of your, um, pants, it's still steep. Salaries and living expenses are higher, so maybe it all balances in the end.

[autogyro]

I am doing some work on an old Mercedes 350SL at the moment,adjusting the Mercedes automatic gearbox. Shifts far to harshly and late.
This is usually the vacuum modulator, which is just a diaphragm under a side plate on this early box. £30.
It might interest you to know that the clutch friction plates are £27 each! from Mercedes, which is now probably the only supply source.
In the old days I could rebuild one in around three hours.
Complex but hardly irreducibly complex.

[dumrick]

Irreducible complexities are hard to achieve in the engineering world. Mathematically, you know this can be achieved, when dealing with logical output systems, time independent, relying on logical variables. When projecting such a system, you can project one that works and then use mathematical logic to reduce its inputs until the system is irreducible. There are however quite a few real-world issues with that, such as:

- sometimes, you need redundancies. Real world sensors are not perfect logical variables. They have a statistical reliability (which very seldom you can quantify) and, mainly in security-related systems, the good practice is to engineer some redundancy;

- in mechanical parts, their reduction to merely mathematically-defined logical systems is too complex to quantify (their are far more analogic and time-dependent systems) and things like metalurgy, mechanical resistance, packaging, the ability of the parts to be produced with current technology and cost-effectively, in fact introduce a lot of reducible complexities in the design.

Some basic reducible complexity is the need to have parts to convert rotational movement in alternate one, like camshafts and crankshafts. However, in this forum are already documented some of the shortfalls of rotary engines and rotary valves...

Concerning the first of autogyro's posts, I don't think this was a philosofical question and far least a valid opportunity for your rambling about religion and atheism which, off-topic, was a rather stupid one. The Universe's intelligence may be expressed mathematically and science is everyday guiding us into further knowledge of it, after supertition and belief denying us of it (and actively avoiding it, like the Christian Church did) for many centuries until the Renaissance. Maybe you are finding less and less room for your beliefs, autogyro, hence the irrational reaction on your post towards atheism (which, as matter of fact, I consider a very dumb designation, given the fact that it almost means like you must define yourself as non-believing in any human fictional creation, like God, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny).

[autogyro]

Manufacturers already have them in those black boxes that the technicians are trained to unplug and replace.

Personally, I'd rather take the box apart and fix the reducible complexities inside.

I think you are muddling the philosophy of idiot proof EMS test equipment and the Darwin black box of undefined evolutionary systems. Both cost more than they are worth.

haha

[autogyro]

Irreducible complexities are hard to achieve in the engineering world. Mathematically, you know this can be achieved, when dealing with logical output systems, time independent, relying on logical variables. When projecting such a system, you can project one that works and then use mathematical logic to reduce its inputs until the system is irreducible. There are however quite a few real-world issues with that, such as:

- sometimes, you need redundancies. Real world sensors are not perfect logical variables. They have a statistical reliability (which very seldom you can quantify) and, mainly in security-related systems, the good practice is to engineer some redundancy;

- in mechanical parts, their reduction to merely mathematically-defined logical systems is too complex to quantify (their are far more analogic and time-dependent systems) and things like metalurgy, mechanical resistance, packaging, the ability of the parts to be produced with current technology and cost-effectively, in fact introduce a lot of reducible complexities in the design.

Some basic reducible complexity is the need to have parts to convert rotational movement in alternate one, like camshafts and crankshafts. However, in this forum are already documented some of the shortfalls of rotary engines and rotary valves...

Concerning the first of autogyro's posts, I don't think this was a philosofical question and far least a valid opportunity for your rambling about religion and atheism which, off-topic, was a rather stupid one. The Universe's intelligence may be expressed mathematically and science is everyday guiding us into further knowledge of it, after supertition and belief denying us of it (and actively avoiding it, like the Christian Church did) for many centuries until the Renaissance. Maybe you are finding less and less room for your beliefs, autogyro, hence the irrational reaction on your post towards atheism (which, as matter of fact, I consider a very dumb designation, given the fact that it almost means like you must define yourself as non-believing in any human fictional creation, like God, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny).

You have criticized me for answering philosophically but your complete post is made up of mathematical philosophy! I cannot see where you are coming from.
In the real world you state, as if it is some kind of excuse to justify the failure of mathematics to support you. The original poster new well enough that this subject cannot be divorced from philosophy. It is why he posted.

[dumrick]

You have criticized me for answering philosophically but your complete post is made up of mathematical philosophy! I cannot see where you are coming from.

I was opposing the rigor necessary to define matematically a system to the complexities engineering introduces. Reducibility is a mathematical condition. And I gave examples of reducible engineering components that are hard to reduce. There's no philosophy in my post.

[autogyro]

You have criticized me for answering philosophically but your complete post is made up of mathematical philosophy! I cannot see where you are coming from.

I was opposing the rigor necessary to define matematically a system to the complexities engineering introduces. Reducibility is a mathematical condition. And I gave examples of reducible engineering components that are hard to reduce. There's no philosophy in my post.

There was no mention of my beliefs in mine.

[autogyro]

You have criticized me for answering philosophically but your complete post is made up of mathematical philosophy! I cannot see where you are coming from.

I was opposing the rigor necessary to define matematically a system to the complexities engineering introduces. Reducibility is a mathematical condition. And I gave examples of reducible engineering components that are hard to reduce. There's no philosophy in my post.

There was no mention of my beliefs in mine.

Reducibility can be a mathematical definition.
Irreducible complexity is a philosophical concept.

[dumrick]

There was no mention of my beliefs in mine.

You believe that people believe in what's cool. This is an example. I see NOTHING in your post BUT your beliefs. The question was about "the possibility for designing things that are easier to work on for motors in cars", not the existance of an Irreducible Complexity in the Universe, which, as you state, would make the question about motors absurd, since motors are made by humans.

So, in my point of view, either you admit the question was about reducibility in the mathematical sense (a simpler system performing the same tasks, like Tissot did on watches, which later made the Swatch possible), or you think the question was dumb.

[Belatti]

Well, to get back on topic I am suffering now with some reducible complexities.

What happens is this: A couple of months ago I left my industry job to a motorsports one. Yep! Im happy!

The thing is I have suddenly enconutered myself with a strong desire to apply all I know (and had been learning here in F1T and there...) in five minutes, with $5, a screwdriver and some glue. And expect the car would be 5 secs a lap faster...

We all know motorsports teams nor life works that way, so I had to sit calmly to think what can I do to start with the right foot, do a fine work and at the same time leave my mark in the cars and in the team, while gaining my mates confidence... Yep! Mechanics are jelaous of the cars they prepare! They wont like too see you changing something that has been winning for 5 races in a row! [-X

Well, I could not told them that there are some reducible complexities that cant change the performance of the car for bad. Even if you try too.

So, first I decided let things as they where. I began measuring all. And when I say all I say all I could. I was kindly enough to explain them what was I doing and what for, in terms they can understand. Yep! We talk strange sometimes! I mean, what a boundary layer really is? Cant you just buy one in a pharmacy?

After that, I knew at least the quantities of the descriptive independant variables (you know, natural frequencies, moment resistances, etc.) and where were we standing.

Once that was achieved I began just "suggesting" setups and improvements even if my function was not that. Believe it or not I entered in this small team for data aquisition functions and responsabilities... but there are no development engineer nor race engineer. Only a couple of consultants that have more experience than me, but are million miles away and have barely seen and measured the car

-I still cant understand why people doesnt even want to hear the word "development" and stays trying to refine what they got-

Cant you make something go faster without having to test 10 different setups in the track? It seems that the "development" word make people thing "uh... this is gonna be expensive". Well, I said: "NOPE! There are some reducible complexities here to develop this car... and its free!"

Still I could do little, but its a matter of trust and hard work till they let me get hands dirty and change the whole thing (this time Ill need a couple of bucks ). Among the fact that the whole suspension is wrong, the chasis is heavy and aerodynamics are awful there are some less important (but still interesting) reducible complexities to work with.

Then, first thing that jumps into my mind is: UNION METHODS!
- Bolts are heavy and expensive
- Welding is heavy and complex (well, a lil bit)
- Adhesives are difficult to "unglue" and are not that reliable when dirt, unknown forces and temperature are arround.

Then the naturally Irredu-Complex Engineer will shout: "do it all in one piece". Yeah, sure! Like if that was THAT easy.

And thats the time were the Irredu-Complex Engineer will have to sit back again... and think...

[F1_eng]

Giblet, the rate I stated isn't particularly expensive. Averaege labour rate in Greater London last year was £117.

And most people can't fix their own car, that is just a fact, maybe someone could fix your car with an elastic band and a chewing gum, but most people want a good quality fix because their car just has to work.