Thoughts on Technology

By Jeffry L’H. Tank

I recently read a comment by a member of one of the BMW motorcycle forums I belong to concerning the idea that simplicity of design is not necessarily better than complex systems. That got me to thinking about the whole issue of the advantages and disadvantages of advanced technology v. simplicity of design/engineering, in both mechanical and electronic systems. Not only in complete systems such as a motorcycle taken in whole, but also sub-systems that regulate items such as timing and fuel, among others. He made the comment that every so often he would see this idea brought up in some discussion on the forum and couldn’t understand why people seemed to feel that “simple is better”. He expounded a view that the new more complex systems are far superior to the older, simpler systems, and having owned those machines in the past, he had no desire to own anything other than modern machines with all of their advances. The question for me then became how does one define “superior”, and are complex systems “inherently” better than simple systems?

Later that evening something happened that really seemed apropos on the subject of technologically advanced v. simple systems and got me thinking about the issue once again. After taking a shower I noticed that my whiz-bang micro circuitry based electronic watch had ceased to function, period. As it turned out it wasn’t a malfunction of the watch itself but was rather due to the incompetence of the employee at the jewelers who replaced the battery. (I won’t even bother going in to the subject of incompetence/lack of effort or pride in one’s work that we seem to encounter so often these days in this supposedly “service oriented” society) Bottom line was that because of the workers incompetence the large “O” ring that keeps the watch waterproof was not put back in properly causing water to seep into the “works” and short it out.

So now you’re probably wondering how does this relate to the original thread of the aforementioned post on a motorcycle related forum? Simply that had it been a mechanical i.e. simple, watch, there is every reason to believe it would have been fairly easy to repair, it would have required nothing more than just opening it up and drying it out, oiling it, winding it up and it would have been all set to go, good as new. However in the case of this particular watch, since it was micro circuitry based technology i.e. complex system, there was nothing to “repair”, when it ceases to function (other than a dead battery) it becomes a disposable item. Now, is that in itself a “bad” thing and would I have been better off with a old “simple” mechanical watch? Not necessarily.

The upside of owning the watch I had was that it had tons of neat features, temperature readings, data storage for a month of said readings, sunrise-sunset times for each day, a display that showed the percentage of daylight and nighttime for each day, a stop watch, several timers, alarms, 12 and 24 hour display, etc. etc. etc. Trying to pack that into a mechanical watch would have been a real challenge and the thing would have weighed a ton! (assuming it could even be done mechanically, which is very doubtful). It was precisely because of all those features that I bought that particular watch to begin with, and therefore assumed the risk that if it went belly up, it wouldn’t be repairable, I’d simply have to replace it at whatever the current cost for the item. That’s the down side. The up side is that I assumed it would not go belly up anytime in the foreseeable future and would most likely far outlast a mechanical watch of similar cost, plus it had all those features I wanted. Such is the price I paid for enjoying such technological advances available today, another plus. But again the down side is that instead of a $30 repair bill for the old style watch, it cost slightly over twice that to replace it.

So again, given the above can I say that I would have been better off with a “simple” mechanical watch? That depends on several factors, one of the most important considerations is what is expected from the “machine” being purchased. A decision has to be made on what is/are the overriding issue(s) with each purchase. Does the buyer desire the additional features, the enhanced performance characteristics, the generally longer lifetime of the individual complements, (along with the additional challenge of trouble shooting the higher level of technology involved should such be required). Or, is the buyer more interested in the ability to repair individual components, the robustness of a simple and relatively easy to understand and repair design scheme and the feeling that they are less reliant on someone else’s abilities to perform such repairs as may likely be required. The (generally) lower cost of ownership can also be a bonus but must be weighed against the high probability that more effort will be required to maintain the machine in top working order. Keep in mind that the above comparisons are made with the assumption that workmanship, design and manufacturing is comparable in both the simple and complex machines being compared.

The Bottom Line

What it all boils down to is that it’s not always a matter of one being “better” than the other, it’s really more a question what is more important to the individual making the decision between the two. Both have their place and both can perform equally well (within their designed levels of performance) and give equal satisfaction to the owner, as long as the owner understands and accepts the pro’s and cons of each level of sophistication. That, in my view, is the essential difference and I don’t believe it is fair to claim that one is inherently superior to the other and with both, as is often said regarding beauty, it is in the “eye” of the beholder.

© Jeffry L’H. Tank

Thanks for visiting VirginiaWind.

Travel | Back Seat | Byways | Specials | Letters | Tips | About Us | Privacy | Disclaimer | Search