MFO6 Contributors Please Vote: Test the Aria or not?

[CoolVanilla]

Both Matt and I have spent WAY too much time on this issue, since the picture of the Aria surfaced on these boards. We're both neglecting businesses we cant afford to neglect, explaining our non involvement and impartiality over and over again. We've been put squarely in the middle of a raging war we didn't ask for, nor do we want. Its bringing down the MFO and killing any enjoyment we might have drawn from it. Enough is enough.

I want to hear from contributors ONLY. This is a public poll, so your vote will be seen by all. If you vote and you're not a contributor, your vote will not be counted. We'll do what 51% OF CONTRIBUTORS (not just voters) tell us to do.

If the majority vote is "Yes - Test the Aria", we'll do so just as planned. If the majority vote is "No - Do not test the Aria", I'll send it back to Lance as well as refund in full his substantial financial contribution.

You tell me what you want done guys and I'll do it. All I ask in return is that you let us put this behind us, either way, as far as the MFO is concerned.

[Leadfootluke]

Different Jig, Different welds, Different Filter, clamps, hoses, etc...

Im just pointing out that it is a different intake, that is all.

There, now lets not let the Scott v. Lance story wreck this wonderful event.

[Junior]

I think we have to test it.

The other issues are separate. Unless something changes, this intake WILL be on the market, and as such, it should be made to stand up next to the rest, whatever the results are. This is about informing the consumer, not supporting the company.

And as far as informing the consumer goes, it would be nice to get it in hand and compare the design/manufacture of it.

But hopefully you guys can detach yourselves from the other issues, and focus on what you need to.

[The Unabomber]

Do you guys have a ARIA unit in hand? If so perhaps you could have Scott or someone send off one of the mild steel units from way back when and compare them and make a decision yourself.


I'd rather see you guys test a stock SRT box with a SMOOTH pipe (not the crappy stock rubber one) with a drop in filter anyhow. I bet we'd all be surprised at the results. I'd even make one if need be.

[Sublimeon24s]

Test it!!!!!!!!

[MattRobertson]

Different Jig, Different welds, Different Filter, clamps, hoses, etc...

Im just pointing out that it is a different intake, that is all.

And as far as informing the consumer goes, it would be nice to get it in hand and compare the design/manufacture of it.

We have it in hand and it appears to be identical in every respect except the filter. The allegation has been raised that this is the same manufacturer who made these units for Hammer Automotive before they dropped the mild steel product and the Aria response to that allegation conspicously did not rule this out. It said there was no exclusivity to the manufacturer and that skirted the question.

I think everyone understood that when a former Hammer Automotive employee (or close associate or whatever) goes into the intake business for himself, you would expect to see the product at least have some 'heritage' involved, coupled with a lot of bitching back and forth. To see a duplicate of the Airhammer come out of the box with a slightly different label on it ... that was a shock we never expected to get, and we are trying to figure out how to deal with it.

[CoolVanilla]

But hopefully you guys can detach yourselves from the other issues, and focus on what you need to.

We're doing exactly that Junior; focusing on what's important for the MFO. The ancillary stuff, the stuff that has nothing to do with the MFO, is not going to detract from our event, period. This poll ensures that. My responsibility is to the MFO6 contributors. Its their vote that matters to me, and to the MFO.

And something else... maybe the heart of the matter as far as the MFO is strictly concerned: is the Aria "different" than the AirHammer mild steel, or not? This MFO is about testing "new to the market" intakes. Is this intake "new to the market"?
^^^Its that very question I've had put to me maybe two dozen times just this morning. Its that question that has prompted this poll.

If yes, then of course we should test it. If no, or not different enough for you to call "new", then we should not test it. What does Lance say? What do you say?

Weigh these things in your own mind, and tell us how you feel by your vote. I'm not going to make the decision as to if its "new to the market" for you.

[Junior]

Well, let me amend my former statement to say that if you can confirm satisfactorily that the ARIA is in fact dimensionally and structurally identical to the Mild Steel AH, then I would not have a problem skipping it.

The problem is that WE would then be in the position of branding it as a clone. It will forever be known as an AirHammer clone (which it very well appears to be, I have to say) - but it would be our words quoted to support that.

On the other hand, if it walks like a duck... it would be a disservice to call it anything other than a duck.

The filter is an issue, though, and it will forever after be questioned, if we don't test it. Ideally, it would be nice to factor the filter out, but that's a whole other can of worms.

I don't have the answers.

[Cam]

Reguardless of it's nature. It's a marketable product, meets all the criteria laid forth in the rules and Lance has meet his obligations here.

Test it.


BTW, lets not forget that filter construction and material choice can play a significant role in how well it works.

[BigHemi06]

Reguardless of it's nature. It's a marketable product, meets all the criteria laid forth in the rules and Lance has meet his obligations here.

Test it.


BTW, lets not forget that filter construction and material choice can play a significant role in how well it works.

Lots of good points from everyone so far....a key point is this is something that is going to be on the market.

[Mr. iNCREDIBLE]

as much as Scott is my friend, and I hate to see him get ripped off..

IMO, test it.. if it shows similar results (if not exact with a Hammer filter) then you have your answer..

it's going to be available for sale no doubt.. unless Scott does something to stop it.. so might was well see how it stacks up..

I'll leave my other opinions out of it.... it's not really worth arguing about....

[Ella C SRT]

I have to agree with the folks that say 'Test it'. It's a company's product that MoFO is out to test and rate- not any business models or ethics.

On to answering your question, J-
Is it new? I would think so. In terms relevant to the discussion: any new version of the AirHammer is considered new to the market -not just a clone- so why should this be any different.

I have to say, though, that 'new to market' is up for debate because the answer is subjective.

Objectivity is a key ingredient in any experiment.

Especially in this case, it would only be fair to test the products under conditions that are as equal as possible and let the results do the talking. Otherwise, each company can tweak their own experiments on whatever terms they want in order to provide better results. Among other things, the testing procedure is consistent at MoFO and, therefore, the results are objective.

The problem is that WE would then be in the position of branding it as a clone. It will forever be known as an AirHammer clone (which it very well appears to be, I have to say) - but it would be our words quoted to support that.

I'm assuming that this means the MoFO is dismissing it as a clone if it refuses to test?
Better branding it as a clone with factual evidence, I'd have to say.

[Junior]

I'm assuming that this means the MoFO is dismissing it as a clone if it refuses to test?
Better branding it as a clone with factual evidence, I'd have to say.

Yess'm, that's what I was getting at, though it wasn't a very complete thought: if we say "It's the same", and don't test it, then almost by definition, we have admitted that since there is no difference between them, the same gains could logically be expected from either.

It would be "MoFO" saying that they're the same, and that therefore any results and potential gains must likewise be the same - and I don't think we ought to go down that road.

That is, IF we refuse to test it, on the grounds that they appear to be the same, which I hope we don't do.

[Hemi Chef]

As stated earlier impartiality is a MAJOR factor in this testing.
Does this product meet the criteria set to be tested?

IMO if it got to this stage I would conclude yes.
Move on,this forum is famous for it's "roasts" so if will be it will be.

Just not here.
Do not muddy the integrity of what is being done here now or in the future.
This is why we are all clamoring for a spot to be tested in the first place.

Sure for some big bucks we can send these things of to a company.
And all sorts of fancy graphs and charts showing all kinds of calculations and computations could be proudly displayed.

However, Buck and Judy in the backwoods of Quebec could give a rat's a$$ about that.
As a member of the forum they see the validity in what MOFO's has established,a grass roots consumer reports if you will.


To that end maybe the company whose product is being tested should not be a contributor.
Honestly I struggled with that very thought before sending the money.



Maybe next time 6 "black boxes" show up to be tested on test day.
Wouldn't that be a gut wrencher for every one!

Regards,
Ed



I just hope when my piece is unveiled I get at least a blindfold and a last cigarette.

[MattRobertson]

I think you guys all have some good points, and its given me a fresh perspective.

Today has been quite a day. My telephone literally started ringing at 7:45am in my driveway and I wound up taking a 1/2 dozen calls before I walked in to work (I have a very long drive). And that doesn't count the text messages from a couple more guys. And it pretty much didn't stop. I can't remember hearing a louder thunderclap in the LX world than today.

And whatever it was for me, it was probably 10 times that for CoolVanilla.