Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The engineering department would build/design to whatever budget is given to them however it's their responsibility to flag any risks. It's up to the project manager/directors to accept this risk.

Exactly.

And either they did... And then it is ING's management fault.

OR they did not - And they are squarely to blame. If the engineers had a report highlighting the risks etc, it would most likely have been leaked by now. Especially as Work Safe was involved with it all etc etc.

The fact it wasn't leaked or hasn't even been mentioned strongly indicates it was just shitty engineering from the outset... Which is little surprise as that is how things are "done" in recent times because people have NFI what they are doing.

Sorry Pat,

Would have to disagree with you here.

I find it highly unlikely that the engineers built the ferris wheel knowing the risks and that it was due solely to budget. If they knew theithere was a risk in it failing upon being built, I would say that they would have abandoned the project or asked for additional funding.

Moreso that they just stuffed up.

Also their are alot more factors to determine if a project is viable other than payback period. I.e NPV,IRR,and other economic factors such as cash flows, good will and additional interested attracted to the area.

+1

ING would NEVER let a wheel get built that "Will crack in a Melbourne summer" and "It will cost you 4x as much as a result".

It's just retarded. Poor design is certainly the winner here. It's almost sounding like a Gov't project that gets fed to someones "mate" and then costs "blow out unexpectedly"

Sorry Pat,

Would have to disagree with you here.

I find it highly unlikely that the engineers built the ferris wheel knowing the risks and that it was due solely to budget. If they knew theithere was a risk in it failing upon being built, I would say that they would have abandoned the project or asked for additional funding.

Moreso that they just stuffed up.

Also their are alot more factors to determine if a project is viable other than payback period. I.e NPV,IRR,and other economic factors such as cash flows, good will and additional interested attracted to the area.

Yes no doubt there was a stuff up but I wouldnt say its 100% engineers fault. They are contracted/paid to come up with a design that meets the budget of the project. Engineering Dept can show several designs at different costs and risks associated but at the end whoever approved and accepted the risk is at fault.

We dont know.. perhaps at the start of the project they believed the budget was enough to cover. Once you start doing the final design/costing, thats where it adds up and could have blown over budget. With investors promised a return & capital locked, cost would have been cut to squeeze within budget. Most likely the order was given to cut costs, changes were rushed, materials swapped, support beams deleted etc to deliver something which falls close to budget.

If the project manager was guaranteed that it wouldnt fail then I would agree that the Engineering/design team was negligent. If there was a risk, thats where management decide to ask for money or accept the risk...

In the end, its nothing new. Many large ferris wheels built around the world. We know it can be built & material composition, structure & loading isnt complex,

The buck stops with how much money they are willing to spend on building one and whoever thought they can build a ferris wheel for that amount of money in Australia.

Also well aware of IRR, NPV etc when it comes down to capital investment & approval.

Discussion was not tailored towards Chartered Accountants :cheers:

In the end, its nothing new. Many large ferris wheels built around the world. We know it can be built & material composition, structure & loading isnt complex,

So how is it then, that our one has turned into a pile of sh*t?

Poorly designed, poorly constructed.

The buck stops with how much money they are willing to spend on building one and whoever thought they can build a ferris wheel for that amount of money in Australia.

All the money in the world cannot stop shit house design work.

So how is it then, that our one has turned into a pile of sh*t?

Poorly designed, poorly constructed.

Someone had an idea that a ferris wheel can be built for that amount of money.

Either make it happen, or we'll find someone else who will.

Perhaps the engineering firm lied about their design or management accepted the risks.

Time will tell...im saying dont be blaming engineering just yet

All the money in the world cannot stop shit house design work.

Structural engineering; If you want something stronger, then keep adding steel and concrete :nyaanyaa:

This equals more money, so I disagree with your statement...

Australia can design a lot of good things, we just dont have the economy to build here. Hence why companies outsource design work to Australia..

and My ki,

Some manager made the call that we can make a system cheaper than just buying one made.

However after the final details came through, thats where the same manager realised he greatly underquoted.

Nothing to do with Engineering in my opinion. Purely money saving driven, instead of opting for a longer payback period with an existing overseas system.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yep, pretty much what you said is a good summary. The aftermarket thing just attached to the rim, then has two lines out to valve stems, one to inner wheel, one to outer wheel. Some of the systems even start to air up as you head towards highway speed. IE, you're in the logging tracks, then as speeds increase it knows you're on tarmac and airs up so the driver doesn't even have to remember. I bet the ones that need driver intervention to air up end up seeing a lot more tyre wear from "forest pressures" in use on the highway!
    • Yes, but you need to do these type certifications for tuning parts. That is the absurd part here. Meaning tuning parts are very costly (generally speaking) as well as the technical test documentation for say a turbo swap with more power. It just makes modifying everything crazy expensive and complicated. That bracket has been lost in translation many years ago I assume, it was not there.
    • Hahaha, yeah.... not what you'd call a tamper-proof design.... but yes, with the truck setup, the lines are always connected, but typically they sit just inside the plane of the rear metal mudguards, so if you clear the guards you clear the lines as well. Not rogue 4WD tracks with tree branches and bushes everywhere, ready to hook-up an air hose. You can do it externally like a mod, but dedicated setups air-pressurize the undriven hubs, and on driven axles you can do the same thing, or pressurize the axles (lots of designs out there for this idea)... https://www.trtaustralia.com.au/traction-air-cti-system/  for example.... ..the trouble I've got here... wrt the bimmer ad... is the last bit...they don't want to show it spinning, do they.... give all the illusion that things are moving...but no...and what the hell tyre profile is that?...25??? ...far kernel, rims would be dead inside 10klms on most roads around here.... 😃
    • You're just describing how type certification works. Personally I would be shocked to discover that catalytic converter is not in the stock mounting position. Is there a bracket on the transfer case holding the catalytic converter and front pipe together? If so, it should be in stock position. 
    • You talking about the ones in the photo above? I guess that could make sense. Fixed (but flexible) line from the point up above down to the hubcap thingo, with a rotating air seal thingo. Then fixed (but also still likely flexible) line from the "other side" of the transfer in the hub cap thingo up to the valve stem on the rim. A horrible cludge, but something that could be done. I'd bet on the Unimog version being fed through from the back, as part of the axle assembly, without the need for the vulnerable lines out to the sides. It's amazing what you can do when you have an idea that is not quite impossible. Nearly impossible, but not quite.
×
×
  • Create New...