Thoughts On the Origin of Model Numbers
18These were originally entries in the “model review” section of the deals in the Meh-Rathon, an essay I put together thinking about where model numbers came from, and who’s most responsible for them. I’m reposting them here for anyone who missed some or all of it. Please be aware this isn’t thoroughly researched or edited, so I’m totally up for hearing counterpoints, things I missed, or obvious mistakes.
1 We’re going to have a lot more deals today than normal. So we aren’t going to do model number reviews, because we just wouldn’t be able to keep up the keen insight and thoughtful analysis we put into each review. So what should we talk about?
2 Rather than individual model reviews, let’s talk about model numbers as a thing. What’s their history? Where did they come from? Did someone invent them? Is there a Father Of Model Numbers?
3 Obviously, model numbers help distinguish between different products, and there have long been products for sale. But model numbers aren’t necessary when you’re selling one-off dresses, or even multiples of clocks you make by hand.
4 Model numbers only become necessary when you are have warehouses full of identical items. And when you have improved on items and need to identify the slight distinctions.
5 So, like most things, model numbers came out of necessity. You can imagine many different people simultaneously coming up with the idea after confusion from their customers on exactly which item they were buying.
6 Certainly people just give their products unique names, but as you create more products, and as the differences and improvements get more subtle, it’s far easier to come up with a model number than a fully new marketing name.
7 So the Father of model numbers isn’t actually the model numbers themselves. It’s more about what led to the need for model numbers.
8 So…how old are model numbers? What was the first model number?
9 What was the first product referred to as a model? A Model T comes to mind. Is T the first model number?
10 No, Model T wasn’t the first model number. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ford started with the Model A.
11 No, there weren’t 19 production models between the Model A and and the Model T. Most remained only prototypes, though there was a Model C, Model N, and Model S.
12 Confusingly, the model that followed the Model T wasn’t the Model U, but the Model A again, because Henry Ford said it was so different it justified starting over again. Marketing names getting in the way of model names.
13 So was the Model A the first model number? It’d be a nice logical starting point, and would earn a good review from us with it’s clarity and lack of hyphens.
14 No. But it is a good baseline - we know certainly that model numbers are at least as old as 1903, when the Model A debated.
15 Are model numbers connected directly to assembly lines and mass production? That would make cars a likely starting point for models, and model numbers.
16 Did you know Henry Ford didn’t invent the assembly line? Or even the automobile assembly line? You know who did? Ransom Eli Olds. Yes, as in OIdsmobile.
17 So, is Ransom E. Olds the inventor of the model number, if he invented the assembly line, and assembly lines led to models, and models led to model numbers?
18 Tracking down the oldest “Model numbers”, if model numbers came from assembly lines, then the car first created on one is known as the Curved Dash Runabout. A good name, but is it a Model name?
19 Ah, but it turns out the Curved Dash Runabout did come in models. The 1901 model appears to have been called the Model 6, 2 years before Ford’s Model A.
20 Was the first model number an Oldsmobile Model 6? What happened to models 1 through 5? Google is no help here, other than solidifying the 6 is the oldest of the Olds.
21 Everyone’s familiar with Make & Model for cars, but does that necessarily mean they were the first models? Where did calling a product a model come from?
22 Model is from the latin modulus, a variation on modus, meaning measure.
23 So the term model, from modulus, is connected to modular, and module - standardized parts, and independent units, used to build a more complex structure. It’s easy to get back to assembly lines down this path.
24 Because it turns out that measuring is key in standardized parts. In fact, the difficulties of building and measuring to exacting standards is why we didn’t get assembly lines until recently.
25 Assembly lines build models, but many people don’t realize their true innovation, not isolating building steps, not moving things along a line, but interchangeable parts.
26 Without parts made to strict specifications (and measured to confirm they meet those specs), each step of building involves custom fitting a part into other non-standardized parts, usually cutting, filing, or re-building pieces to get them to work.
27 Romans could have thought to line everyone up and do one step of a process, but it wouldn’t have had the efficiency gain you need from interchangeable parts made to strict specifications.
28 Making parts to strict specifications requires technology. Machinery.
29 The invention of machining tools, lathes, milling machines, metal planers, jigs & blocks, and, importantly, gauges to accurately measure the specifications of your results.
30 If machinery is required for interchangeable parts, and interchangeable parts are required for assembly lines, and assembly lines are required for models, and models are required for model numbers, than model numbers can’t be older than that advanced machinery. Can they?
31 As an aside, what Henry Ford did invent, was moving the assembly line along the people, rather than having the people move along the assembly line.
32 That seems obvious, but, again, required conveyor belts, which required interchangeable parts made to careful specifications.
33 Where did the idea of mass production of nearly identical things come from? What was mass produced before cars?
- 10 comments, 4 replies
- Comment
34 Like a lot of technological advances, the idea for mass production using interchangeable parts came from military needs. Muskets.
35 Not only would interchangeable parts make assembling muskets faster and cheaper, it’d also make repairs easier on the battle field.
36 It’s easy to see that whoever could make weapons faster, cheaper, and easier to repair would have a massive advantage.
37 So the French tried mass production of muskets using interchangeable parts way back in the late 1700s. How’d it go? Not well.
38 Before advanced machinery, there were machinists who got a design and hand-crafted the parts. But their skills were not in making identical pieces, they were in making pieces that they could get to work together - one person would complete an item from start to finish in order to adjust to his or her own quirks in creating the previous piece. The exact opposite of an assembly line.
39 An early relative to mass production was called “batch production.” An early implementation of batch production using metal machinery and interchangeable parts was another military source: creating pulley blocks for the British Navy during the Napoleonic Wars.
40 The difference between “mass” and “batch” production is in the continuity and consistency - mass production flows, not stopping to shift sizes, materials, or to make alterations. Batch production uses a single production line to make a variety of products, but the line stops, is reconfigured, and tested between changes, leading to downtime and reducing efficiency.
41 The first successful implementation of batch production using interchangeable parts appears to be another military source: creating pulley blocks for the British Navy during the Napoleonic Wars. But when the wars ended, the need for the huge numbers ended as well, and this methodology was mostly discarded for several decades.
42 Despite early attempts in France, and some success in England, the method that led to the mass production that led to models is commonly referred to as the American system of manufacturing.
43 Unsurprisingly, another name for this mass production system of manufacturing is “armory practice” because of, again, the military uses.
44 America’s Secretary of War, Henry Knox, was particularly interested in this system, familiar with the failures of the French and British to successfully implement it.
45 Henry Knox built armories at Harper’s Ferry expressly with the goal of solving the problem of interchangeability. Whether it was that focus, or general advancements in milling machines, by 1815 they had enough success that Congressional contracts required interchangeability in muskets, rifles, and pistols.
46 Eli Whitney is sometimes credited with this success, but there’s only documented failure - his contract to create 10,000 muskets in 2 years actually took 8 years to complete. He’s known more for his promotion of the idea than accomplishing it.
47 In peace time the armories opened their shops to manufacturers, and machinists who had worked in the armories went on to use the same methods with clocks and sewing machines.
48 For the most part, prior to automobile assembly, these factories still only made partial use of the interchangeability, mass producing the metal parts that would then still be hand placed by skilled machinists into, essentially, hand-made products.
49 Increased travel methods and speed allowed manufacturers from Europe and around the world to visit America, take in these improvements and tweaks, and bring them back to their countries for implementation
50 So the “American system” is a term most commonly used outside of America itself, to explain the ideas seen implemented in America (ironically, ideas originally imported from Europe). But the term is only rarely used now at all, as it is essentially just the “manufacturing system.”
51 A lot of industries have a “The Father of…” or “The Mother of…" terminology, often a stretch, sometimes an outright falsehood. It doesn’t seem like there’s one “inventor” of the model number, but who might be considered most responsible for it?
52 Rather than who initially had an idea but failed to get it to work, or who fully accomplished something once the right technologies were in place, it seems correct to credit the person most responsible for actions leading to the success.
53 With Model Numbers, we can look to models. From models, to assembly lines. And from assembly lines to interchangeable parts. The person most responsible for the successful use of interchangeable parts is then, also, the Father of the Model Number.
54 Honoré Blanc was the French gunsmith who first attempted, but mostly failed to implement a system of interchangeable parts. He tried to convince others in Europe to try, but couldn’t find anyone willing to put the idea into action.
55 So Blanc thought about who he knew who might be interested in trying out new ideas - who might have motivation to try something that could provide an advantage, and who might have a blank slate to implement a new system without having to displace an old one.
56 In the mid-1700s, it was starting to become obvious to some in the colonies that rule under England was not acceptable. But what could be done, when not only were their armies far larger, and their weapons far more numerous, any potential for building up an American army would rely on European sources for military equipment.
57 So Honoré Blanc turned to a friend of his to help promote his ideas, and who ultimately helped convince Henry Knox to build armories with this new system in place - the American Ambassador to France, and The Father of the Model Number, Thomas Jefferson.
TL;DR, but thank you for posting these.
@jsh139 Ha, yes, this is fair. My number one goal was “fill that space” which I feel like I was completely successful at. My number two goal was “write something that someone will read some or all of and find vaguely interesting” which…depends on your definition of vaguely, I think.
@dave I’ll be reading them all tomorrow for sure
Meh-ration, eh?
@medz ducking autocorrect!
I thought they were entertaining and informative. While I didn’t read them all, I definitely read some and thought, “Hmm. How 'bout that.”
Thanks for adding this so I don’t have to click a million times.
It turns out I missed quite a bit between all the excitement and, y’know, my day job. I’d say it’s slightly more than vaguely interesting, although the subject matter started as a joke and on its surface is about as exciting as many British hobbies. I like the surprise ending, too. It’s kind of like a “The Way I Heard It” (or originally, “The Rest of the Story”).
Thanks, @Dave, for reposting and letting me nerd out without so many clicks.
– A Devoted Model Number Review Fan
Thanks for this! I always follow and enjoy the model number reviews, but this time I didn’t keep up. I’m glad to have the chance to read it as soon as I’m supposed to be doing something else.
It didn’t suck.
@Pavlov strong consideration for epitaph
Amazing.
I’ve always thought that the first model number given to a product was the caveman that made the first wheel.
There’s almost proof available somewhere on the internet that shows the first wheel was model #WHL001WW.
Of course, this is for the ‘white wall’ version.
It’s hard to get models’ numbers sometimes.
/image can I have the digits
