Why re-invent the wheel?

The good ole days, I remember them well, are full of sayings like ‘don’t re-invent the wheel’. Throughout my Engineering degree, and my career in general, I’ve learned that there is always something out there that has already been designed by someone that will do what you need. Or at least will be at least 90% of the way there. There really is no need to re-invent the wheel. Or is there?

A team of Engineers at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania think there is, and their new shape-shifting design combining part-track, part wheel, was recently viewed for the first time on a Hummer.

The aim of the new design is to gain the benefits of stability from the tracked drive whilst minimising slippage etc in rough terrain (mud, sandy slopes etc.), yet not sacrificing speed or becoming unwieldy (traits typically associated with tracked machines).

However, is this really re-inventing the wheel, or is it taking the best parts of both designs and nailing them together (perhaps with a little more sophistication) in a way that suits the required outputs?

In design process terminology this would be brought about by first generating a definition of requirements, or design specification, that lists what is required at the outset. This would be agreed with the end user to make certain that the design process was going in the correct direction, and the design process (research, sketches, tests etc.) would refer to this document regularly as the design progresses. Any required changes to this document would be made clear and agreed by the client or user at the time, so that at the end of the process the correct design will emerge.

This is all contained in clause 8.3 of ISO9001:2015, perhaps with a few more words around it, however it means the same.

It’s all about getting suitable designs out after all, without, erm, re-inventing the wheel.