11/8/14 7:40 AM

china is a great builder of stuff. high technology, high productivity, high quality, low cost. all wonderful outcomes (at the expense of US-based production, but that's another discussion).

but where's the innovation and new thinking? sure there are lots of chinarellos and ifone-clones and the like, but i really see it in aerospace. not a single significant new aerospace creation from china exists w/o significant DNA coming from a western and more often than not designs of US-origin. hell, the chinese even have purchased sukhoi fighters from russia with the sole intent of reverse engineering them in entirety to create their own "indigenous" fighter and are about to do this again!

i'm intrigued by what the cultural phenomena might be where copying/cloning/stealing is the primary motivation and source of technical innovation in a country?

here's an image of china's still-in-development airlifter, the bastard Y20, parked in front of it's illegitimate "daddy" the C17:


here's the J15 carrier jet who's airframe was cloned directly from the soviet/russian Su33:


and here's the ARJ21 and it's poppa the venerable DC9:



here's the chinese J20 next to the F22 raptor. its also well known that the chinese have systematically hacked thousands of GBs of stealth and system tech-data from lockheed-martin:


and here's the notorious chinarello dogpoo 6.5


and the long-awaited GooPhone i6 -- it make much more happy big fun for you!


and of course, the colonel:


and yummy treats!


Last edited by walter on 11/8/14 12:49 PM; edited 6 times in total

11/8/14 8:59 AM

...it's "BS", which is more in line with "Chinarello Dogpoo".

In case anyone is actually wondering, "Chinarello" is not a brand, it's just slang for Chinese knockoff carbon frames.

11/8/14 7:01 PM

They used to say that about Japan. Innovation isn't such a problem for Japan now.

Reverse engineering is simply a fast path to technology advancement, for industries and companies without the capital to buy technology outright.

I think it has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with practicality. It worked for the Japanese, who is to say it won't work for China.

11/8/14 7:23 PM

much like the soviets that wanted to make up the post-WW2 technological gap to the west, they did their fair share of clone-ivation and outright theft during the cold war.

and there are limits to what copying can achieve in terms of true systems integration where experience is the key. despite the massive investment in technology and use of soviet origin designs, the chinese are a long way from fielding a credible aircraft carrier force or manned spaceflight program or large passenger aircraft or truly high performance gas-turbine engines. but 20 years from now we will probably see something close to parity.

11/8/14 7:44 PM

What's important to the economy? Aircraft carrier? Manned space flight? Large passenger aircraft???

The Russians in post WWII era were in a arms race with the US. From their point of view, it's the survival of their way of life that's on the line. So it's critically important that they were on the same level of the US in military technology. They put the brightest and smartest of the entire soviet brains on the space program and military technology. They achieved pretty amazing results.

I can see it being critically important for the military. And maybe even as a national identity through the project of the nation's military muscle. But I'm having a little trouble seeing the economical benefit. (and that also applies to the US, if to a lessor degree) So the question becomes, why would the brightest and smartest of China's brain be put to work (or wasted) on military hardware???

11/8/14 8:38 PM

...the party bosses say so.



debating potential economic benefit doesnt address the question. why does the clone-ivation culture exist? making up ground seems to be the driver in most areas.

doesnt really seem to be the case for KFC and oreos...maybe its just because those are cultural icons and are just so yummy!

11/8/14 9:02 PM

sanrensho already answer the question. It's got nothing to do with culture.

The party is more interested in growing the economy and the military has to wait.

You sound disappointed that you don't have a make-believe enemy to justify the military spending in the US. But that's simply barking up the wrong tree

11/8/14 9:13 PM

funny indeed.

your notion about the absence of a chinese military foe is amusing and misguided, as the chinese are spending hand-over-fist on their military. i could give you many, many examples but you know how to google. that was not something id even considered because its so preposterous. even if that were not the case, sadly the US would create some imaginary foe to justify massive military budgets. russians, chinese, dragons, aliens...whatever it takes.

im honestly more interested in the lack of interest/motivation to innovate by a country full of such smart, hard-working people.

11/8/14 9:57 PM

One restaurant in Beijing. Sensationalism.

Of course, this doesn't happen in America, does it?



(Brooklyn NY)

BTW, China has hundreds if not thousands of genuine KFCs. They're everywhere.

Sandiway

Last edited by sandiway on 11/8/14 10:10 PM; edited 1 time in total

11/8/14 10:10 PM

Counterfeiting is a major problem in China today.

Not just Pinarello, but also many other brands, even many Chinese brands are being counterfeited.

I'm told many of the so-called Chinarellos are actually decent carbon bikes and ride fine. It's just a paint-job difference as there are many differences in the frame. In fact, there are many people riding them without problems. Many Pinarellos are made in Taiwan. However, misrepresenting as Pinarellos is of course illegal - and illegal in China too...

Sandiway

11/8/14 10:20 PM

When I went to graduate school in Michigan, I had two choices when it comes to text books: buy them new and sell them at about half price when I'm done with the course; or buy used one and sell it again when I'm done, losing perhaps 20% of the full price.

But my Indian classmate offered to get all of our textbook for the next year from a counterfeit textbook source back in India. The cost of the books were so low it's almost negligible. We paid mostly for his trouble of getting the books, and ferrying them into the US.

And I get to keep the textbooks after the course. That means I can make notes on the margin or highlight sections as I see fit! :D

11/8/14 10:30 PM

quote:

---

i'm intrigued by what the cultural phenomena might be where copying/cloning/stealing is the primary motivation and source of technical innovation in a country?

---

11/8/14 10:40 PM

When I went to interbike and met the vendors who claimed to make Pinarello frames, they would sell the un-badged frames to me for a little over $200 each if I bought two of them.
Their factory designed the construction methods, but the western buyer needed to "design" the frame to precisely match their targeted market's consumers.
Since most of the cloned items are presumably exports, it's up to the importers to define the functional and aesthetic design parameters, but the guts of many of these gadgets are copies to the extent that existing designs can be re-used (copied) in order to lower the product's cost. Even Chrysler is known for doing this.
Chinese vendors will of course duplicate other's designs to the full extent that they can get away with selling them, as this yields the highest profits. Domestic (within China) buyers may be unconcerned with whether their phone or whatever is the latest design because most could never afford current, licensed premium products.
It seems that designs will come from countries whose consumers actually buy the designed products for full price. The countries that mostly just manufacture them should continue to excel at doing that.

In terms of the Chinese gov'ts military organizations (who are charged with making progress towards defense hardware at lowest cost), their choice to copy superior aircraft is entirely pragmatic. Using original forms of technology would be a luxury that yields a lower rate of return on investment.

Last edited by dddd on 11/8/14 11:31 PM; edited 1 time in total

11/8/14 11:07 PM

quote:

---

Domestic (within China) buyers may be unconcerned with whether their phone or whatever is the latest design because most could never afford current, licensed premium products.

---

11/8/14 11:17 PM

quote:

---

im honestly more interested in the lack of interest/motivation to innovate by a country full of such smart, hard-working people.

---

11/8/14 11:21 PM

Getting interesting...

11/8/14 11:52 PM

"Actually, plenty of people in China can afford to buy Apple products. Demand is high. In fact, people in China used to pay more than list to get the latest Apple phones, so much so that smuggling iPhones bought from the Apple stores in Hong Kong at full retail price to sell for even more back in China became a real problem."

I've heard of this, among the perhaps 1%(?) of city-dwelling Chinese who can justify such a purchase. But again, most cannot, and the somewhat-dated, cloned counterfeit product can be sold in great numbers to less-capitalized, but satisfied customers.

Most of this discussion would seem to boil down to demographic differences between countries in terms of monetary power (wealth).
Chinese on balance will make greater sacrifices (such as allowing polluting manufacturing factories and accepting lower wages) in order to make a buck than will more-consuming countries who will supply "money" and define the functional and aesthetic design parameters of the products that China's factories produce.

Chinese military decision-makers will simply copy western designs as the most efficient way to modernize and to sell as much military hardware as possible.

11/9/14 12:04 AM

quote:

---

cloned counterfeit product can be sold in great numbers to less-capitalized, but satisfied customers

---

11/9/14 2:20 AM

I thought the J15 was a licensed copy.

They copy so much stuff because they already make just about everything. They already know how to make the stuff so it is only natural.

So many companies invent the products we love and just have the Chinese laborers make it for pennies when compared to domestic workers.

Y'all do realize the US does not make a single TV here. Not one and we invented the things. There really is not a decent US consumer electronics company that is based in the US anymore (Apple is the anomaly)


Never think that just because it is Chinese made that it is inferior because everything you purchase is Chinese made. In fact bike companies make it a BIG deal if they have a product that is made in the home country. Trek beats their chest as does Cervélo and others if the frame you are looking at is made in in North America. Cippolini beats his muscled chest about his Italian made bikes while Colnago makes their bikes in Asia.


BTW, my Chinese wheels work great, I just pulled them off for winter training, they are by far the best purchase I have made short of the Cervèlo bike they are put on (asian made too).

They are the WORLD's manufacturing headquarters get over and buy what you like.



Russian copies abound there and the Russians are copy cats too, for many years I might add.





There are some major design differences but a copy none the less.

China nabbed some Russian tech here too. Ya, ride in the middle, the front is the closet and toilet, it does not come home with you.

11/9/14 7:07 AM

Wrt the shuttles, Buran did look a lot like "our" shuttle, but the differences were profound. Buran had no engines on the orbiter and launched with only a liquid fueled booster (no SRBs). The USSR learned a lot from the problems that we had with the SRS, and didn't make the same mistakes.

Of course, they made their own mistakes (look at the history of the N-1 program, which was not at all like the Saturn V).

As for other space launch technology, the USSR definitely went its own way. Today's Soyuz booster is based on the R7, ENTIRELY different from any US tech, and the Chinese Long March boosters address also unique.


When the R7 was designed, we were still playing with the Redstone, a low budget ripoff of--guess what?--the V2.

11/9/14 8:15 AM

A lot of tech that we use is probably designed in the PRC, though we don't recognize it as such. I recently bought a tiny projector. I'd be very surprised if it was a copy of anything... And it was of course made in China.

Phones? Other than the iPhone, of course. And virtually all phones are manufactured in China



[/u]

11/9/14 8:37 AM

The former USSR admitted to stealing our shuttle designs and changing what did not work for them.

In fact the best thing that came out of our SS was the main engines. They are in fact living on in the new SLS. All the old SS engines are being repurposed into that program. Many of them had as many as 25 burns on them and a few had over 10 launches! With only one being shut down going uphill. That launch still made it to the designed orbit on two engines.

The USSR design was really no better, it flew once, without a crew and then rotted to the ground, literally. Well it was better really; it never killed anyone.

The Soyuz is a great design but much like an old VW beetle it still gets the job done.

Hell, we went to the moon on beefed up V2s, the designer was the same person...

Back to the original post by walter, There comes a time when physics takes over. To make an aircraft LO, you have to go with what works and if the physics dictate a design or shape, no matter what you follow it. That means that tools will eventually appear the same. The F35 nose looks very much like the F22.

(I digress for walter's sake)BTW, I had F35s here last week. They are not as loud in the pattern or on the ground as advertised. Unless you are behind them on takeoff. The F16 is the most annoying sounding jet ever. Well, almost, the T37 is really.

Case in point, the new Orion capsule, which is designed for re-entry speeds almost double what the the current crop of LEO spacecraft are dealing with dictates a shape JUST like the Apollo capsule. Physics drives the shape.

If SpaceX goes beyond EO they have already stated the Dragon capsule will be reworked. Event the new Dragon 2 will be tweaked. The current Dragon looks very similar to the Soyuz re-entry capsule, it follows physics too.

11/9/14 9:14 AM

perspectives learned...thx y'all!

11/9/14 9:24 AM

Yes, physics. Look at drawings of the Saturn V N-1 together sometime: Same mission, same size (even though, in this case, the designs were substantially [and fatally for the N-1] different). As Eric says, physics takes over.



The reason Buran flew once and rotted was that it wasn't really functional in terms of the USSR's defense budget--the R-7 derivatives coud do everything it could do and more. It was really the last gasp of the "space race." Interestingly, the USSR had a program to produce a rocketplane of some sort for probably longer than the US did (that mostly died with Dyna Soar). See Astronautix.com for details.

As for the aircraft, physics indeed runs the show. While you will occasionally see an aircraft that looks *different* (I think of Saab's Drakken, one of the most beautiful birds ever, in my opinion) most aircraft tend to look alike, unless you're an aerospace engineer (to my mind, most cars look alike, and there are fewer constraints there). This didn't stop people from referring to Soviet passenger aircraft as "Boeingavitch" ('Son of a Boeing').

Orion's resemblance to Apollo and the Chinese-Soviet-Dragon recovery vehicle similarities are interesting, and while one is national and one international, both have the same ultimate rationale: there are only so many ways to design a lightweight steerable hypersonic vehicle that will fit on top of a booster. The shuttle was far too heavy to go where these vehicles will be going. We won't see significant movement away from these kinds of capsules until we come up with a significantly different landing mode, hopefully one that is far removed from that of the shuttle.

The Soyuz is exactly like an old VW. A decent design that's been slightly refined over the years, but seldom substantially changed. Where each shuttle was practically a one-off, the Soyuz is more like mass production. Statistics from Astronautix:

"[A]s a space launcher, the R-7, with upper stages, became the most successful in history. By the year 2000 over 1,628 had been launched with a success rate of 97.5% for production models.

Failures: 99. Success Rate: 94.30%. First Fail Date: 1957-05-15. Last Fail Date: 2005-06-21. Launch data is: continuing. "

12/5/14 2:31 PM

despite all the efforts of the chinese government and industry to emulate and otherwise acquire technical expertise from the west, in many very complex fields of endeavour there are practical limitations on how rapidly you can *effectively* achieve via borrowing or emulating.

to wit:

turbine engines -- the chinese have purchased many very capable jet engines from russia, europe, and the west and attempted to copy them. however, they are still incapable of manufacturing a high-performance turbine engine on par with the west. despite having all the technical data and working examples at their disposal, estimates put china best turbine engines at least 20 years behind the west. it's one thing to have the data, and a whole 'nuther thing to have the experience engineers and practical know-how to make truly world-class gas turbine engines.

naval power -- the chinese military-industrial complex can certainly build ships as big and as numerous as anyone else. but putting a boat into the water vs. actually being able to operate it effectively are 2 entirely different propositions. the chinese purchased from russia a couple aircraft carriers and are building others...despite having the hardware and more than likely copies of every US Navy training manual you can think of, the chinese navy simply hasnt had the opportunity to develop the organizational know-how to effectively operate a single carrier much less an effective naval air fleet to project power in a meaningful way.

space flight comes to mind, stealth technology too -- there are numerous other examples where it's just freaking complicated and really hard stuff -- it'll take time and experience to really achieve parity. this not a critique, as i've said before the chinese are a nation of very intelligent and hard-working people, it's just an observation. fwiw i just watched that tv special about the terra-cotta warriors and learned alot of interesting stuff about the chin dynasty and china's origins.