Date:         Thu, 10 May 2012 02:11:34 -0400
Reply-To:     Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject:      Re: Failed Ca Smog due to Evaporative leak
In-Reply-To:  <CAFaJG5o0ZXMs1rgG=GQynFVk0Y_yu3ViQogu8cKuBbH8N0LzOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Tim,

Sorry to have trimmed off Don as the source of the other quote re:
paying someone off. Actually you are right it's a terrible business
model, and so is selling vanagon engine conversions, the market is too
small to warrant the development we've done, but we're not in it for
profit we're in it to develop the capabilities to go from service work
to small-mid scale fabless manufacturing while doing something we
enjoy and can deliver value to others in exchange for support of our
growth. As we turn the corner, we can re-apply to other bigger markets
to pursue the money we need to live and grow, and keep vanagons as a
hobby (which we don't want to give up, and making your hobby your job
*does* begin to break down your hobby)

To the comment that says "You could get your engines through CARB but
you won't bow to some bureaucrat" isn't correct I mean the BAR, and
it's not in isolation, we won't bow to get an end result that lowers
customer value, and isn't guaranteed to be usable. I believe doing
otherwise is wrong, and irresponsible. We can't get the CARB EO for
other reasons entirely.

  It seems common in engineering to believe that anything possible (or
seemingly impossible) is justifiable to design and build. Many things
should arguably have been left incomplete, the decision as to which
ones can actually be justified do indeed belong to philosophy and not
engineering. However it rarely seems to work out this way and either
business with naked focus on profit or an engineer will make the
decision.   I agree about the one not realized and the one complete,
and which one we ascribe to. Perhaps pursuit of the one not realized
is the only way to get to one truly worth completing. Seems to me the
very best ones completed are actually byproducts from the pursuit of
the one not yet realized. The whole not realized vs complete sounds
like first order model theory which is definitely logic/philosophy.

Don't get me wrong, we haven't gotten the EO for lack of trying, we
don't want the BAR, and I think we've already generated the most
complete one while pursuing the one not realized.

Jim Akiba

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Aristotle Sagan
<killer.jupiter@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now I don't mind you using my words in a quote,
<snip>
> about paying someone off. Be a little more careful.
>
> As far as my comments and your explanations, good for you. Doesn't
> sound like a good business model, but then again 1.) I ain't no
> business man, and 2.) You sell how you want, what you want, where you
> want. You could get your engines through CARB but you won't bow to
> some bureaucrat. Sounds like you are. As an engineer, I believe there
> are only two conditions, one not realized and one complete.You have
> chosen the first as your 'design philosophy'.