What is All the Noise About?
Editor’s note: Why are workers still experiencing hearing loss? Did you hear about how some manufacturers make products noisier to make them sound more pleasant? Is noise control still a good description of what we do? These are all some key questions for our noise control community addressed by Dr. Jim Thompson – former President of INCE-USA and Chair of the SAE Noise and Vibration General Committee. He’s also the Editor of the Noise Control Engineering Journal.
The Customer is Always Right But ….
By Jim Thompson
The adage that the customer is always right has served me well for a long time. However, there is often a ‘but’ that comes after this phrase. Here is an example.
I was working for a tire company, and we had submitted tires for a new prestigious vehicle program which we felt was important have our tires sourced. We had been through months of design, testing, and evaluations with the customer. Our customer, a large original equipment manufacturer (OEM), in our final meeting asked for a 3 dB improvement in the tire noise. This was impossible without affecting other aspects of performance. At this stage in the process, this was a requirement that we could not meet.
I could not say this to the customer. So, all I could do was indicate this was a major challenge and that we would do all we could to meet this new requirement. As soon as we got out of the OEM’s tech center, my colleagues from tire design were asking me what to do. Over the course of the next several weeks we ran several simulations and built prototype tires to make as much improvement in noise as we could. The result was that we were able to achieve a 0.5 dB improvement.
I should add that we knew the vehicle had noise shortcomings, but we could not say this to the customer. Since the customer is always right, they do not like being told their vehicle is deficient. The vehicle had a sound transmission characteristic that we had seen in a few vehicles from this manufacturer. There was too much noise transmitted in a particular frequency range. I had brought this up in what I thought was a positive way indicating the frequency range of concern and the probable transmission paths during a meeting concerning a previous vehicle and had my “head chopped off” by the OEM program chief engineer. I was told in no uncertain terms that there was an intentional design reason for this sound transmission issue, and this characteristic would not be changed.
A few months after the meeting in which the new requirement was announced, we were summoned to the OEM’s proving grounds in Arizona to run tests to demonstrate our tire noise improvements. I was going there with several colleagues from tire design and the sales office. We knew it was not going to be a pleasant visit, but we were all prepared for a negative outcome. We were concerned that we might be removed from the vehicle program. Which meant we would also face a negative outcome when we returned to the office.
Early in the morning we drove into the customer’s proving ground and were escorted to a large meeting room. We were setting up our presentation when one of the program engineers walked in and told us to stop. There was a problem with the prototypes they had on hand, and we might not be able to test that day. Of course, we asked what the problem was. The engineer was embarrassed, but honest enough to say that there was too much friction in the rear transverse leaf spring on this vehicle. When the vehicle hit a significant bump, the suspension would go up and get stuck. Until this problem was resolved, we could not run tests.
It is important to note that this innovative suspension was one of the reasons we wanted to be on this vehicle. It was supposed to be a technology showcase for the OEM. A big publicity campaign was planned for its introduction. It was a great opportunity for us to shine in the light of this innovative vehicle.
So, with the cancellation of our presentation, we had time to kill. Once we were on the proving ground, we could wander around freely. So, being a group of engineers, we went over to the vehicle garage to see what we could learn. The first thing we saw there was all four prototypes up on lifts with mechanics trying to pry the springs loose. There was a lot of profanity and frustration. In talking to one of the mechanics, we learned that all our competitors submitting tires for this program had said they could not meet the noise goals and refused to submit new tires. While this did not give us complete confidence, it sure helped our mood.
We had to come back the next day to run tests. The OEM ran a series of on-road tests and found we had maintained all other aspects of performance and to our surprise, complemented us on the improvement we had made in noise. There is no way that the test driver could detect a 0.5 dB improvement in noise even running back-to-back, our previous design and the new version. There was some internal face saving going on.
To this day, I believe we got the business and the noise improvement complement because we saw the customer at his worst and kept our mouths shut. We said nothing derogatory about their problems and did our best to commiserate with them about their predicament. The customer is always right, but sometimes you need to look the other way.