Junior
12-08-2008, 02:59 PM
The Bad:
1) No track testing. We got fogged out at Sacramento Raceway on Saturday, and thus we couldn't test anything on the track. Beyond the MFO track component, there were a lot of folks (myself very much included) that were really looking to put down some new numbers, and it just didn't happen. I don't know that some of us will have an opportunity to race in good air anytime in the next year or more, and that makes me crazy. My all-time best ET was at 3500 DA. While we were there, the track was at -366 DA. A lost opportunity, and a lot of real disappointment.
2) No heat resistance testing. We would have loved to perhaps settle the ACT temp debate - or at least get some good data towards that end. We ran into timelines, traffic, and 40° days - all of which made this one a no-go. We did log some data on two intakes, and I'm not the one to present that data; I don't understand it as well as others. What we did learn will be presented.
3) One intake was not included because its designer followed the rules. He did the right thing, and as a result, he lost out. That's all that needs to be said there.
The Ugly:
We, ourselves, introduced grey area into our methodology, contrary to all we know. We did that. It was our decisions that took us down that path, and we will stand by them. All along, we made those choices based on the circumstances at hand, bearing in mind how any particular choice would be interpreted down the road. Let me expand a bit on some of that thinking:
Before you read any further, please read this post (http://www.lxforums.com/board/showpost.php?p=1921217&postcount=3). The timeline is correct, and it saves me having to repeat it.
Now then - Jason allowed his deadline to be extended or relaxed in only two cases - both of which were at my request. One was for an intake that I sought to bring (the True-Flow), and one was for an intake that I was requested by the manufacturer to bring (the AEFIS). At the time, it made sense to do it this way. In retrospect, it was a bad call. Deadlines are there for a reason, and it's a good one.
The next mistake I made was in trying too hard to help the suppliers of the products I was responsible for getting there, when neither was ready for game day. In the case of the True-Flow, I received the intake within the deadline (or very close to it), but it was missing the elbow - a critical component, and one without which, we simply could not test the unit. In the case of the AEFIS, four days before the event, in this thread (http://www.lxforums.com/board/showthread.php?t=140925), the unit was declared to be a "Prototype". In both those cases, and at that point, both intakes should have been dropped from the testing - immediately, and for good reason.
However, if we had done so, I want you all to admit to yourselves what I know to be true: If we had dropped them (even because neither followed our explicit instructions), there would have been an outcry, and right now we would be talking about that issue. We would have taken a beating for making that call to drop them. Lots of people wanted to see them tested.
I had planned on writing nearly as much as CV did on the timeline and our thoughts at each point - there were a number of deliberations through the event, and in each case we made what we believe to have been the best decisions given the (ever-changing) circumstances. I'll stand by every one of them. I won't be re-writing that whole post, though - our thoughts are in sync.
Lesson Learned: Stick to your gameplan.
----------------
The next thing to mention is the Live Chat. I'll get to the "Good" of the chat in minute - there's lots of good. There was also a little bit of Ugly.
One thing that made it much easier for us to slip down the slope was the ability for everyone to see every step, and interact with us in real-time - but it's important for the process to be that transparent. Part of me thinks that we should have remained detached from the observers more than we did, but I don't see how we could without losing the very valuable aspect of the live chat, and they were a huge part of the event. No answers from me on that one - it is what it is.
Those of you who use it know that I'm never on chat. It's not my style. Added to that is the fact that I tend to take people's comments at face value. The result is it's hard for me to sense irony or sarcasm in chat. This is especially true when I haven't been following the conversation all along. Twice, I stumbled onto a comment that may have been misunderstood. In the first case, it was *in retrospect* an obvious joke, and I didn't catch that it was (sorry, Nate). In the second case, I caught someone telling a lie about something that mattered, and I pounced. The comment was false, and I made that clear in no uncertain terms. When I looked at the conversation again, it seemed that I had again missed a joke, and I apologized in the case that it was meant as one; I then explained what I saw and what I was responding to.
I'm not a fan of making an accusation, and then retreating by calling it a joke - It didn't come across as a joke, and I was not willing to risk anyone else misinterpreting it either. There are those who said afterward that no apology was owed - a shot was taken, and an appropriate response was given. That being said, whether or not the apology was owed is no longer up for debate: My apology was given, and that's the end of it.
Lesson Learned: Be careful how you come across.
The Good:
It's easier to spit out the bad and ugly, because that's what a lot of your energy is spent dealing with - more thought and deliberation was spent on solving these issues than reflecting on the good times, but let me do my best because at the end of it, the vast majority was great.
Acknowledgments that are well-deserved:
First off, SVS R&D gets a HUGE nod - these guys, from the top down, are incredibly talented at what they do. Not only do they have talent, but they have a heartfelt enthusiasm for doing it, and sharing it. This has been the case since I first met the crew, in May of 2006. Their competence and enthusiasm was immediately recognizable. Robert, Bob, Mark, and Hank: You guys are better at what you do than anyone I've ever had the opportunity to be around. Thank you for all that you continue to do.
Jason and Joyce: You two are the absolute core of this thing, and nowhere near enough credit for all the work you do will ever be given. I know it, as does everyone who has witnessed it.
Cam, Matt, Jonn, Chris, and Chris: You guys are such a blast to be around, and again, the proficiency in that group is unmatched by any other I've ever been around. The knowledge, creativity, and personality in this bunch is above and beyond. Anytime, fellas.
Ken and Art: My new pals that I'm glad to have - we couldn't have done it without you, and I don't mean simply the use of the cars - you two are great to work with, and a pleasure to be around. Glad I got to press palms, and turn wrenches with you fellas. Looking forward to the next time.
George, Wolf, Ryan, Paul, Lonnie, Steve, Jeff, Marguerite, Mao, and everyone else who came out: Great to see you again and to meet those I hadn't! Great to have you around, gang.
The chat room peanut gallery (not the packing peanut gallery): You lot are a riot. Thanks to the circus for participating the way you did! I can't tell you how great it felt to know you were out there, and to hear your thoughts, jokes, ribbings, and all of it. At neither of the last two MFOs I participated in, had I been on the forums yet - so I didn't know anyone who wasn't in the room - the chat component was lost on me for those two. Here, it was just a real hoot to share it with you, and to hear you all chiming in. I can't say enough how glad I was to have you all out there, when I did have the time to check in with you. Just awesome yakking with you all. Sorry I didn't have any clippers with me. ;) And John, tell Amanda I was sorry that I missed her.
Anitta: Thanks babe, for being my sounding board and sidekick. Having you around to let me share what was burning me up, or cracking me up, was just a huge help. And you took on your own little projects too, and we love you for it.
-----------------------
There really is nothing quite like this event. I honestly love it more than even the Spring Fest, but they are very different - and each has its distinct aspects that are hard to recreate, and hard to express to those who missed out.
I love to get together with these guys and gals to do what we love to do. Seeing what works, and what doesn't, and getting our hands on new products and new thoughts... simply doing the numerous tasks that need to be done is a pleasure with a bunch of friends.
Even when we're trying to sort out the situation, it's still all about learning about and tinkering with these cars. It made it harder to follow the format, but I hope folks can appreciate what came out of it all in the end - lots of things we didn't know before.
Someone tell me how we didn't get a group shot? For Pete's sake.
All the best, everybody. :not_worth
1) No track testing. We got fogged out at Sacramento Raceway on Saturday, and thus we couldn't test anything on the track. Beyond the MFO track component, there were a lot of folks (myself very much included) that were really looking to put down some new numbers, and it just didn't happen. I don't know that some of us will have an opportunity to race in good air anytime in the next year or more, and that makes me crazy. My all-time best ET was at 3500 DA. While we were there, the track was at -366 DA. A lost opportunity, and a lot of real disappointment.
2) No heat resistance testing. We would have loved to perhaps settle the ACT temp debate - or at least get some good data towards that end. We ran into timelines, traffic, and 40° days - all of which made this one a no-go. We did log some data on two intakes, and I'm not the one to present that data; I don't understand it as well as others. What we did learn will be presented.
3) One intake was not included because its designer followed the rules. He did the right thing, and as a result, he lost out. That's all that needs to be said there.
The Ugly:
We, ourselves, introduced grey area into our methodology, contrary to all we know. We did that. It was our decisions that took us down that path, and we will stand by them. All along, we made those choices based on the circumstances at hand, bearing in mind how any particular choice would be interpreted down the road. Let me expand a bit on some of that thinking:
Before you read any further, please read this post (http://www.lxforums.com/board/showpost.php?p=1921217&postcount=3). The timeline is correct, and it saves me having to repeat it.
Now then - Jason allowed his deadline to be extended or relaxed in only two cases - both of which were at my request. One was for an intake that I sought to bring (the True-Flow), and one was for an intake that I was requested by the manufacturer to bring (the AEFIS). At the time, it made sense to do it this way. In retrospect, it was a bad call. Deadlines are there for a reason, and it's a good one.
The next mistake I made was in trying too hard to help the suppliers of the products I was responsible for getting there, when neither was ready for game day. In the case of the True-Flow, I received the intake within the deadline (or very close to it), but it was missing the elbow - a critical component, and one without which, we simply could not test the unit. In the case of the AEFIS, four days before the event, in this thread (http://www.lxforums.com/board/showthread.php?t=140925), the unit was declared to be a "Prototype". In both those cases, and at that point, both intakes should have been dropped from the testing - immediately, and for good reason.
However, if we had done so, I want you all to admit to yourselves what I know to be true: If we had dropped them (even because neither followed our explicit instructions), there would have been an outcry, and right now we would be talking about that issue. We would have taken a beating for making that call to drop them. Lots of people wanted to see them tested.
I had planned on writing nearly as much as CV did on the timeline and our thoughts at each point - there were a number of deliberations through the event, and in each case we made what we believe to have been the best decisions given the (ever-changing) circumstances. I'll stand by every one of them. I won't be re-writing that whole post, though - our thoughts are in sync.
Lesson Learned: Stick to your gameplan.
----------------
The next thing to mention is the Live Chat. I'll get to the "Good" of the chat in minute - there's lots of good. There was also a little bit of Ugly.
One thing that made it much easier for us to slip down the slope was the ability for everyone to see every step, and interact with us in real-time - but it's important for the process to be that transparent. Part of me thinks that we should have remained detached from the observers more than we did, but I don't see how we could without losing the very valuable aspect of the live chat, and they were a huge part of the event. No answers from me on that one - it is what it is.
Those of you who use it know that I'm never on chat. It's not my style. Added to that is the fact that I tend to take people's comments at face value. The result is it's hard for me to sense irony or sarcasm in chat. This is especially true when I haven't been following the conversation all along. Twice, I stumbled onto a comment that may have been misunderstood. In the first case, it was *in retrospect* an obvious joke, and I didn't catch that it was (sorry, Nate). In the second case, I caught someone telling a lie about something that mattered, and I pounced. The comment was false, and I made that clear in no uncertain terms. When I looked at the conversation again, it seemed that I had again missed a joke, and I apologized in the case that it was meant as one; I then explained what I saw and what I was responding to.
I'm not a fan of making an accusation, and then retreating by calling it a joke - It didn't come across as a joke, and I was not willing to risk anyone else misinterpreting it either. There are those who said afterward that no apology was owed - a shot was taken, and an appropriate response was given. That being said, whether or not the apology was owed is no longer up for debate: My apology was given, and that's the end of it.
Lesson Learned: Be careful how you come across.
The Good:
It's easier to spit out the bad and ugly, because that's what a lot of your energy is spent dealing with - more thought and deliberation was spent on solving these issues than reflecting on the good times, but let me do my best because at the end of it, the vast majority was great.
Acknowledgments that are well-deserved:
First off, SVS R&D gets a HUGE nod - these guys, from the top down, are incredibly talented at what they do. Not only do they have talent, but they have a heartfelt enthusiasm for doing it, and sharing it. This has been the case since I first met the crew, in May of 2006. Their competence and enthusiasm was immediately recognizable. Robert, Bob, Mark, and Hank: You guys are better at what you do than anyone I've ever had the opportunity to be around. Thank you for all that you continue to do.
Jason and Joyce: You two are the absolute core of this thing, and nowhere near enough credit for all the work you do will ever be given. I know it, as does everyone who has witnessed it.
Cam, Matt, Jonn, Chris, and Chris: You guys are such a blast to be around, and again, the proficiency in that group is unmatched by any other I've ever been around. The knowledge, creativity, and personality in this bunch is above and beyond. Anytime, fellas.
Ken and Art: My new pals that I'm glad to have - we couldn't have done it without you, and I don't mean simply the use of the cars - you two are great to work with, and a pleasure to be around. Glad I got to press palms, and turn wrenches with you fellas. Looking forward to the next time.
George, Wolf, Ryan, Paul, Lonnie, Steve, Jeff, Marguerite, Mao, and everyone else who came out: Great to see you again and to meet those I hadn't! Great to have you around, gang.
The chat room peanut gallery (not the packing peanut gallery): You lot are a riot. Thanks to the circus for participating the way you did! I can't tell you how great it felt to know you were out there, and to hear your thoughts, jokes, ribbings, and all of it. At neither of the last two MFOs I participated in, had I been on the forums yet - so I didn't know anyone who wasn't in the room - the chat component was lost on me for those two. Here, it was just a real hoot to share it with you, and to hear you all chiming in. I can't say enough how glad I was to have you all out there, when I did have the time to check in with you. Just awesome yakking with you all. Sorry I didn't have any clippers with me. ;) And John, tell Amanda I was sorry that I missed her.
Anitta: Thanks babe, for being my sounding board and sidekick. Having you around to let me share what was burning me up, or cracking me up, was just a huge help. And you took on your own little projects too, and we love you for it.
-----------------------
There really is nothing quite like this event. I honestly love it more than even the Spring Fest, but they are very different - and each has its distinct aspects that are hard to recreate, and hard to express to those who missed out.
I love to get together with these guys and gals to do what we love to do. Seeing what works, and what doesn't, and getting our hands on new products and new thoughts... simply doing the numerous tasks that need to be done is a pleasure with a bunch of friends.
Even when we're trying to sort out the situation, it's still all about learning about and tinkering with these cars. It made it harder to follow the format, but I hope folks can appreciate what came out of it all in the end - lots of things we didn't know before.
Someone tell me how we didn't get a group shot? For Pete's sake.
All the best, everybody. :not_worth