[sourabhzen]

Originally Posted by jaysmokesleaves

All said.. form and functionality does not mean just being capable to traverse all kinds of terrain and adverse conditions. As long as humans are driving it, human ergonomics can be incorporated into the overall plan too.

Forgive my ignorance, but I could not find anything which says that the vehicle is ergonomically ill planned. Is there any report that suggest that the vehicle was not designed with ergonomics in designers mind?

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by sourabhzen

Forgive my ignorance, but I could not find anything which says that the vehicle is ergonomically ill planned. Is there any report that suggest that the vehicle was not designed with ergonomics in designers mind?

While I agree with you that we shouldn't comment without knowing facts, we should keep in mind that conventional ergonomics as we know it, may not be applicable as is, in defense or industrial applications.

Especially in defense, the focus is on survivability and second on how quickly can the vehicle return fire/get back to its tasks. In a senario which involves a hard bench seat, which can protect the occupants better than a foam seat, in case of IED impact, the hard bench will be chosen.
Likewise a suspension which guarantees obstacle clearance and can withstand fire/arms/bombs is chosen over the one which gives a smooth ride. A smooth ride is only desired when it requires that the gun platform be stable for firing. Hence you can see airmatic/pneumatic suspensions on say a tank but not on a load carrier/troop carrier.