Hello Ed.  
I have to agree with you: sometimes "hybrid" design is an echo from past times.
The reason why the design is so tight and not forgiving may be that we (in the
"hybrid" game) are too eager to miniatyrize everything on the substrate,
because making "hybrids" is often equal to making smaller (to convert a large
PWB into a matchbox sized "hybrid" is cool).Another reason may be that many
"hybrid" manufacturers are rather small compared to the gigantic PWB ditos.
This means that a lot of manual or semimanual work is done, in order to adjust
and fineplace, and oftenly little is P-P'd. Still another reason why things
look so strange is that the "hybrid" people are far from the enormous
processing resources that is typical for a PWB line. At our company (not so
small) there is still a remarkable loss of cooperation between the PWB people
and the "hybrid" people.  
Those manufacurers within our company which have P-P also have a somewhat
better design appearance. Maybe you will see a comment from one of these guys.

These facts may answer some of your questions. Finally, I dislike the word
"hybrid", sounds like something from Mendelsohn's flower science......
                      /Ingemar / Ericsson Microwave Systems


> Fellow professionals (yes, you know who you are!)
>  
> For the past few years, I have been a manufacturing engineer involved with
> the entire circuit board assembly process.  I have spent considerable
> amount of time working with the PCB designers with SMT pad design,
> component spacing, solder thieves, etc. to design a board that can be
> manufactured repeatably to a high quality level.  I have used pad designs
> and suggestions taken from IPC, SMT Plus, and numerous others in the field.
> Things have gone great thus far, with process and quality improvements,
> etc.
>  
> For the past few months, I have slowly become involved in a hybrid, or
> thick film project within my company.  Much of the design work has been
> done outside, and I have only become involved as problems have developed.
> The SMT pad designs used by these companies are similiar to what I have
> used in the past, but not as robust as those that I have helped develop for
> past circuit board designs.  It is as if the SMT pad design clock had been
> turned back about 10 years.  These companies are using smaller pads,not
> using pads that will allow for component size variation or placement
> variation, or having two components share pads.  In my opinion, pad designs
> that are not robust, and are not pads that I would accept for boards I have
> helped design.  Space is a limiting factor on this design.  My question is,
> is there a different set of guidelines for SMT pads on a ceramic substrate?
>   Can components share the same pad (end to end), and not be a problem due
> to the different expansion characteristics, etc.
>  
> I appreciate any comments and suggestions
>  
> Ed Holton
> Hella Electronics
>