• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Electrical Engineering News and Products

Electronics Engineering Resources, Articles, Forums, Tear Down Videos and Technical Electronics How-To's

  • Products / Components
    • Analog ICs
    • Connectors
    • Microcontrollers
    • Power Electronics
    • Sensors
    • Test and Measurement
    • Wire / Cable
  • Applications
    • Automotive/Transportation
    • Industrial
    • IoT
    • Medical
    • Telecommunications
    • Wearables
    • Wireless
  • Resources
    • DesignFast
    • Digital Issues
    • Engineering Week
    • Oscilloscope Product Finder
    • Podcasts
    • Webinars / Digital Events
    • White Papers
    • Women in Engineering
  • Videos
    • Teschler’s Teardown Videos
    • EE Videos and Interviews
  • Learning Center
    • EE Classrooms
    • Design Guides
      • WiFi & the IOT Design Guide
      • Microcontrollers Design Guide
      • State of the Art Inductors Design Guide
    • FAQs
    • Ebooks / Tech Tips
  • EE Forums
    • EDABoard.com
    • Electro-Tech-Online.com
  • 5G

How too many tradeoffs can kill a project

February 25, 2022 By Bill Schweber Leave a Comment

It’s often about focus: designing a product to meet two overlapping objectives may be nice in principle but often leads to harsh tradeoffs, substandard performance, and eventual failure in practice.

Engineering design is more than just ensuring the various hardware and software components fit together and work as intended. During both planning and implementation phases, there will inevitably be tradeoffs among key performance parameters, power, size, weight, and other factors. (They are often called “compromises” to make them sound benign.) Balancing these tradeoffs while deciding how much weight to give each is where the art of engineering is added to the experience, expertise, analysis, and hard numbers.

But some projects try to do too many things, so the tradeoff matrix is harsh. Consider the flying car. We’ve heard about these since the 1950s, including the one popularized in the classic cartoon series “The Jetsons” (1962-1963) (Figure 1).

Fig 1: Flying cars have long been the stuff of dreams, including the one popularized by The Jetsons cartoon series. (Image: The Jetsons Fandom Wiki)

Every five years or so, there’s a spate of publicity about how flying-car prototypes are nearing final development, and we should be seeing them on the road and in the air soon. This “they are just around the corner” cycle then dies down, only to reappear about five years later. For example, just a few years ago, companies such as Terrafugia (a PR-coverage “star”) were getting lots of favorable attention, but now they are pretty much gone (Reference 1 and Figure 2).

Fig 2: This flying car from Terrafugia was “almost” ready for certification a few years ago and received considerable publicity until it wasn’t quite “there” and the company folded. (Image: Terrafugia)

However, when you think about it, the flying car is an example of very conflicting goals, expectations, and mandates. Start with the obvious: an airplane wants a streamlined body roughly in the shape of a cylinder, while a car needs a rectangular-like envelope with four wheels for stability. Most small aircraft have three wheels (nose wheel plus two), so right there, we have a conflict.

The list goes on, as the user expectations for a car as well as regulatory mandates (rear-view camera, advanced braking mechanisms, to cite a few) add to the complexity, weight, and power requirements but have little or no use in the air. For flying, many of the primary requirements are counter to those of the car, and some are actually counterproductive rather than just tolerable.

(Please note that when I say flying cars, I mean just that and not air taxis. There’s been a lot of interest lately in electric-powered short-hop air taxis with dozens of start-ups, and while those may not come to fruition, they do have a singular functional focus (see References  2 through 4.)

So why the enthusiasm for the flying car? I suspect it’s because at least “on paper” it sounds like a great idea, even if you ignore issues of managing airspace and related operational issues. The issue is this: can you build a single vehicle that meets our minimal current standards for cars and also small aircraft?

I think that’s an almost unresolvable conundrum even with our advanced electronics, materials, modeling tools, and more. The reality is that trying to do both will likely kill the project’s viability despite how attractive it seems in theory.

Sometimes it does work

There are cases where combining two functions does bring that much-desired 1+1>2 synergy effect; the basic digital multimeter (DMM) for measuring voltage, current, and resistance is an obvious one (Figure 3).

Fig 3: The digital multimeter, which combines voltage-, current-, and resistance-measurement in a single instrument with one set of test leads, is a simple case of multiple objectives in a single product making sense. (Image: Adafruit)

There are also oscilloscopes that merge their traditional time-domain function with a frequency-domain spectrum analyzer capability. This minimizes front-panel and bench-top space and reduces the number of leads and internal complex front-end circuitry. At the same time, the ability to look at both domains simultaneously and have the two functions share data can really enhance the test and measurement process.

But that is often not the case. After all, if you were doing some furniture assembly at home, you’d probably prefer a dedicated single-function screwdriver to the multifunctional, very popular Leatherman (Figure 4). The latter is optimized for minimizing weight and size, while the former is optimized for performance at one specific task. Those are legitimate tradeoffs to consider for a given project.

Fig 4: Each has its place and time: the single-function larger screwdriver versus the multifunctional, compact, folding toolset. (Image: Wikipedia; Leatherman

An excellent example is the development and evolution of lunar lander from the Apollo moon missions. The original plan was to have the third stage of the Saturn launch vehicle be the lander and return capsule. It would go to the moon and land (actually, it would back down), and the astronauts would then use that same third stage to blast off for the return trip. That multipurpose third stage would provide life support, navigation, and communication, plus a heat shield for reentry as well.

But as the planning team went through the details and numbers, they could not get the physics or operational issues to “work.” That third stage would be too heavy, too encumbered, and too unwieldy to be a lander, liftoff, and return-trip vehicle all in one. John Houbolt, working on his own at great career risk, proposed and championed the radical idea of instead using a super-light, disposable lander optimized solely for landing from the lunar module orbiting the moon, returning them from the surface to that orbiter.

Once that decision was made – and it was a very long battle to make it so (see EE World Related Content, Items 1 and 2) – the entire frame of reference and engineering “mindset” for the lander’s design changed completely. It could now be an ultralight, flimsy, ungainly, non-aerodynamic, and disposable unit that could barely stand on its own on Earth, as it no longer had to meet so many conflicting goals (Figure 5). The entire engineering basis shifted dramatically and decisively by focusing on a much more limited set of objectives.

Fig 5: Once the decision was made to have the lunar lander just be a vehicle for landing on and leaving the moon’s surface, the nature of the mission tradeoffs and constraints changed dramatically. (Image: NASA)

When someone in engineering (or, more likely, in marketing) suggests adding additional features and functions to make a product satisfy the needs of multiple missions, it’s important to be honest about the ripple impact and resultant. Ask and re-ask: Why? What does it “cost?” What conflicts will arise if we try to do more? In what ways will trying to do more burden the project with “dead weight” and severely impact the original, primary function?

Will it be a case of 1+1 = 0.5 or perhaps even zero? It’s like trying to use a smartphone loaded with apps to try to do “everything” ­– it can do some of these very well, but for many others, it is awkward and perhaps using that desktop PC for some tasks makes more sense (as so many work-at-home people are now re-discovering). Sometimes, as the cliché goes, it is true that “less is more” – in this case, trying to do less is more likely to succeed.

EE Word Related Content

  1. When audacious engineering leads to major success, Part 3: Apollo Mission profile
  2. When audacious engineering leads to major success, Part 4: Apollo Lunar module
  3. Be wary when they say, “That change should be no big deal “

References

  1. Flight Global, “Terrafugia to shut down US operations: reports”
  2. IEEE Spectrum, “Air Taxis Are Safe—According to the Manufacturers”
  3. IEEE Spectrum,” EVTOL Companies Are Worth Billions—Who Are the Key Players? “
  4. IEEE Spectrum, “Following the Money in the Air-Taxi Craze”

 

 

You may also like:


  • Up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane!…

  • First go for accuracy, then precision

  • When audacious engineering leads to major success, Part 4: Apollo…

  • When audacious engineering leads to major success, Part 3: Apollo…

  • Inertial Measurement Units: The hidden key to Apollo success, now…
DesignFast Banner version: 2cc01971

Filed Under: FAQ, Featured

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

EE Training Center Classrooms

EE Classrooms

Featured Resources

  • EE World Online Learning Center
  • CUI Devices – CUI Insights Blog
  • EE Classroom: Power Delivery
  • EE Classroom: Building Automation
  • EE Classroom: Aerospace & Defense
  • EE Classroom: Grid Infrastructure
Search Millions of Parts from Thousands of Suppliers.

Search Now!
design fast globle

R&D World Podcasts

R&D 100 Episode 7
See More >

Current Digital Issue

Our second 5G Handbook is now available

Featuring 15 articles, the 2022 5G Handbook looks at private networks, timing, connectivity, latency, mmWaves, test, and other topics.

Digital Edition Back Issues

Sponsored Content

Positioning in 5G NR – A look at the technology and related test aspects

Radar, NFC, UV Sensors, and Weather Kits are Some of the New RAKwireless Products for IoT

5G Connectors: Enabling the global 5G vision

Control EMI with I-PEX ZenShield™ Connectors

Speed-up time-to-tapeout with the Aprisa digital place-and-route system and Solido Characterization Suite

Siemens Analogue IC Design Simulation Flow

More Sponsored Content >>

RSS Current EDABoard.com discussions

  • How do design a circuit that tells the difference of 2 Voltages is within range
  • DC to DC buck converter
  • SNR input, what is it?
  • Frequency of FM transmitter not changing
  • What's the deal with all these "MPPT" IC's with no current sense?

RSS Current Electro-Tech-Online.com Discussions

  • Shock from Oscilloscope ground clips
  • Finally switched to Linux.
  • How to quickly estimate lead acid battery capacity ?
  • IRS2453 the H circuit
  • Ampro 16mm Stylist projector woes.

Oscilloscopes Product Finder

Footer

EE World Online

EE WORLD ONLINE NETWORK

  • 5G Technology World
  • Analog IC Tips
  • Battery Power Tips
  • Connector Tips
  • DesignFast
  • EDABoard Forums
  • Electro-Tech-Online Forums
  • Engineer's Garage
  • Microcontroller Tips
  • Power Electronic Tips
  • Sensor Tips
  • Test and Measurement Tips
  • Wire & Cable Tips

EE WORLD ONLINE

  • Subscribe to our newsletter
  • Lee's teardown videos
  • Advertise with us
  • Contact us
  • About Us
Follow us on TwitterAdd us on FacebookConnect with us on LinkedIn Follow us on YouTube Add us on Instagram

Copyright © 2022 · WTWH Media LLC and its licensors. All rights reserved.
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media.

Privacy Policy