In response to the Doc's Concorde observation, I offer two words: Stanley Steamer.

This was a fiendishly clever product of New England genius. It was a steam-powered automobile with two cylinders and so much torque that the Stanley twins, who designed and produced these cars, didn't bother to put a transmission on the sucker. Was it fast? Oh, yes, it was. In 1906, just eight years after the Stanley's had started to design cars, one of their steamers was clocked at 127.66 miles per hour on Daytona Beach in the first car do be designed for aereodynamic efficiency with wind tunnel tests. The next year they had reached 150 miles per hour.

There were just a couple of problems. One was that it took about fifteen minutes to heat the steam in a Stanley's boiler to the required temperature for operation. The other was that it was priced at about $600, twice the cost of a year's wages for a working man. Thus, the internal-combustion engine, while not as fast or efficient as the Steamer, won the economic race after the invention of the self-starter. A less efficient technology had trumped a more interesting technology, one that was capable of greater speeds- but not capable of operational efficiency.

That's where the Concorde failed. The only reason it is still flying is because it was flown so little. Fast, sure. But an operational nightmare. It is really an engineering disaster taken as a system; I'm sure it's wonderful to fly, and I would be there at the gate tomorrow if I could afford it. But to service? Can you imagine how much the parts cost?

This is a part of a historic pattern, btw. The most innovative technology will be pushed aside if a cheaper, more dependable alternative can be found. Haydon Christensen has talked about this in relation to business history, but of course it is an observation of the history of technology as much as it is of business.