Re: 2 stroke / 4 stroke advice

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:08:02 -0500, withheld <nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>Were you running vehicle development programs at that time also?
>If so please tell us what programs you worked on and what results you
had.
>
>If you were, then you know all about the MEPS, Pathmore and Challenge 
>vehicles and probably remember when that one became a smoking hole in 
>the Lodge freeway on its way to do a demonstration to congressmen 
>assembled at Cobo during SAE week.  Best line ever ..... Smith, the 
>executive head of the program got up to the podium to introduce the 
>vehicle (while the DFD was trying still working) and said “I really wish 
>I didn’t have to apologize for the failure of this breakthrough vehicle 
>to make an appearance, but I have just been informed that there has been 
>some technical difficulty that indicates that more development may be 
>required.”   - My own very personal “Houston, We have a problem.”
>
>With the total loss of the only program vehicle with all the prototype 
>hardware and then the finding that this type of casualty would be very 
>difficult to prevent, the program was buried.  For 100,000$ in small 
>unmarked bills, can you tell me where it went and what it became?
>
>The pictures that I took then have been released.  The problem is that 
>if I post them somewhere, then I and some associates (they are still in 
>the industry) could be identified and this might not go well for them 
>(me - I do give a **** any more.)
>
>I never though I would get to the point where I enjoyed taking the time 
>to recount these stories.
>
>Thank You
>

Hoo-boy!

CWM

>
>Charlie Morgan wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:24:51 -0500, withheld <nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Oh - Charlie,
>>>
>>>This is great view of the mistaken common mythology.  There were a huge

>>>number of individual vehicle that did just that and as early as 1970. 
I 
>>>had two in my own lab.
>>>
>>>I drove and tested that car and the CVCC Vega too.  The Nova was not 
>>>production feasable at that time (the opinion of a famous think tank), 
>>>and Honda would license the CVCC design for about ~100$/per vehicle
(not 
>>>including the increased manufacturing cost (remember - this was a 2k$ 
>>>base vehicle).
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> You are so full of it your eyes are brown. 
>> 
>> CWM
>>