That video is depressing with how sad the current car market sucks.

You can be called structural engineer with just your PE. Though asking for the license is interesting, as you aren't supposed to be calling yourself an engineer unless you have your stamp. Which all of these people who call themselves an engineer without even a BS in engineering are idiots. I am speaking as someone living in the US where this does matter. SE on the other hand, I didn't see any tall buildings posted in those pictures, so that would be the wrong career path for such a rare license.

Not sure how an RX-7 thread could even turn into something about convertibles though.

 

There is no legal requirement to be an engineer in the US. I know non-degreed engineers designing race cars successfully and people with no PE designing surgical robots. There is a good change a non-degreed engineer I knew helped D design the engines on the last commercial jet you flew on. Only a dumb engineer assumes a non-degreed engineer isn't worth listening to. Only when you legally need a PE do you have to worry about such things and in many areas a PE is worthless.

 

I'm an aerospace engineer (B.S./M.S.) with structures emphasis, my job title has generally been either Stress Analyst or Structural Engineer. I do space, air, and road vehicles, not buildings and bridges. No PE, none ever required or asked for where I've worked (Martin Marietta, Lockheed, MIT/Lincoln Lab, etc.) or interviewed (Cessna, Gulfstream, GATech, etc. etc.) I went to a concert instead of taking the EIT all those years ago. Never took it, never took the PE exam either. As mentioned by rockville, it's not always terribly relevant to have a PE, although at Lockheed we were required to have *one* PE in my department of ~25 engineers.

Somebody mentioned how remarkable it was that the S2000 was lighter weight (not necessarily true anyway) than the FD despite being a convertible, a discussion ensued...

 

And now it's off topic enough to close the thread, if it continues.

 

Sorry to jump in kinda late with this structural argument, and I'm no expert in this field, but I have probably an overly simple question. I've always subscribed to the notion that a fixed roof equated to a more rigid structure, why? because it's a closed structure, a box, vs a tub. But, considering today that most cars roof panels are made of practically tin foil, the only real benefit is the cross beams and aperture panel, with the roof panel itself offering very little structural benefit when you consider the added weight that comes with it. So if you were to squish the box down, and lose the center roof panel, in essence it would be a solid structure. Now I understand that having a square structure will give it more rigidity, but the tradeoff would be higher center of gravity. Point is, I believe that a car like the S or C5 vette which were designed as verts from the get go, can be as light, if not lighter, without sacrificing that much rigidity, if the original box design was to be a lower, flat rectangle from the get go. I doubt any of the jibberish I just said make any sense, but just my mind trying to simplify a complex subject.
Now back on topic, love the FDs, but it will always be a love affair from afar, the reliability issues just isnt worth it to me. Wonderful cars, honestly, a damn near perfect car, I mean drop dead gorgeous, handles exceptionally, has the balls, love the interior, and again I just love staring at them. But man, that engine, it makes the car great by allowing it to be compact, gutsy, revvy, but just so unreliable. Imo, if this car were overbuilt reliable, sorta like the supra or gtr, man, I'd imagine the resale prices being higher than the supra. Oh well.

 

Don,
I will offer a few things to think about. First is Dave McLellan's book about the Corvette. McLellan was the lead Corvette engineer though the C4 and into the C5 days. He noted that in 89 when they were looking at ideas for the C5 [edit: which would have a convertible like structure] that the ultra stiff [edit: benchmark convertible] for the time MB SL500 had a torsional frequency of 18hz. Typical sedan of the time was "significantly above" 20hz. The MB was one of the stiffest convertibles of the day [edit: yet was inferior to sedans of the day]. While much can be done to make a convertible stiffer if done from the start I still don't buy the claim that it can be as good as a car with a roof. Certainly not unless you accept some sort of unreasonable compromise someplace else in the design. It would be nice to have some comparative stiffness numbers for say a Civic and S2000. My problem is finding them and even when you often don't know if they are apples to apples. It's like comparing random mileage claims. My mileage while say flogging a Prius around the Top Gear test track might be lower than yours while following me in an M3.

As for the roof remember that there are two parts to the roof. You have the arched beams that make up the perimeter and pillars of the roof. Also that thin sheet metal is a stress panel. It acts like a belly pan on a well designed race car. The belly pan on a proper tube frame race car can bump the stiffness by 20%. The sheet metal of the roof can do something similar (though not likely as much).

EDIT: clarified the SL stiffness statements per my post below

 

Lower frequency => LESS stiffness per weight. I.e, 18 Hz is "worse" than 20+ Hz.

 

Yes, that was the point. A convertible GM noted as a target for stiffness was less stiff than a typical sedan. I do recall a thing or two from system dynamics ... but when you posted that I was worried that I said something like "can" instead of "can't". Nothing worse than emphatically posting something only to see afterwards you typoed and left out the negative! "You CAN turn the boost up to 20 psi!" instead of "You CAN'T..."

OK, upon rereading my earlier post I can see the confusion. I didn't clearly state that the SL was a convertible and it's 18hz number was considered ultra stiff for the day for a convertible. I also should have noted that the C5 structure was effectively that of a convertible hence the reason to look at the MB vs a sedan. I think that intent does come out upon rereading but I can see how on first read that might not have been clear since I didn't explicitly state that even though the SL was stiff for a convertible it wasn't for a sedan of the same time period.

 

Yea! I started a thread

 

Whoa. Holy paintbrush! There is absolutely a legal requirement to be a PE in the United States, depending on what you do and where you work.

You may call yourself an engineer if you work for an internal customer (ie, you work for a company that provides products to the public). You cannot, however, call yourself an engineer if you, personally, provide products to the public, unless you have a PE. You cannot be a consulting engineer without a PE. You cannot certify public buildings and structures without being a PE. There are many things I could list but the bottom line is, if you aren't serving the public or directly related to public safety, you don't need a PE. Otherwise, you do. If you don't believe me, read the monthly reports from the state or provincial engineering agencies/boards and see how many people have had fines for going against what I've said above.

In Canada, you can't even call yourself an engineer unless you have registered as an engineer-in-training (EIT) or a professional engineer.

For the record, I have a Bachelor in Mechanical Engineering degree and am a registered PE in Texas and Alberta.

Nowhere is it required for you to be an engineer to come up with creative and innovative designs and ideas, though. An experienced shop person or drafter is just as critical to many designs as the engineer driving the project. My first two major jobs after university required me to spend months on the shop floor prior to spending any time actually designing anything, in order to improve my practical knowledge before trying to dictate what those in the manufacturing group had to try and build, based on my design(s).