I'm curious. What's your hiring screening like, and/or does your employer train employees to work on RC models? I've found that new-hires can rarely actually DO what they claim to be able to do, and it really doesn't matter what field we're talking, either. But it usually takes them screwing a few things royally before anyone catches on. Delegating responsibility to someone before he's proven capable isn't really good management.
I'm just curious...have you ever worked on any of the more complex late-model cars, with multiple processors that all have to communicate with each other? I have, and without long-term factory support, or a much more sophisticated electronic-component aftermarket than exists at the moment, there are going to be a lot of vehicles only suited to sit up on blocks in the yard. It already takes a fair bit of out-of-the-box thinking and resourcefulness to maintain full function on some vehicles as new as 2001. The mere ability to correctly diagnose onboard-computer issues is beyond the capabilities of a large percentage of 'professional' mechanics already (...like when the onboard-diagnostics functions are down ) and "make their own"...really? Maybe where YOU live, the mechanics and rodders are more highly-evolved than they are around here. Chrome and plastic parts don't have to actually DO anything, and the aftermarket is already flooded with kinda poor quality on simple appearance items, and mechanical bits that don't come close to meeting OEM specs. Aging vehicles with multiple onboard computers may prove to be a real nightmare.
Holy cow. Not only is that a spectacular demonstration of speech-recognition, but the machine-understanding of contextual meaning is almost beyond belief. I think it may have surpassed IBM's Watson. Annoying voice, but that should be easy to modify...and worth the effort, considering the capability this thing has. I've been running and tinkering with Robert Medeksa's "Ultra Hal" chatbot / AI for rather a long time, and it's developed into more than simply a chatbot, I think a little smarter than some of the Siri incarnations I've tried...but nowhere near as capable as this. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll be following this farther.
I agree entirely, and one of the reasons some days I'd just as soon swap all my funky old iron for one clean, nicely prepped and setup C-5 Corvette. But not ALL computer-controlled engines are so spectacular. The entire EEC (electronic engine control) system in my poor old '89 GMC 1500 failed progressively over a period of several months. GM, of course, no longer supports the electronics, and in my experience so far, all of the offshore replacements are quick-fail garbage. Aftermarket electronic engine management systems are cost-prohibitive for a vehicle I bought for $100. So, to keep her on the road, I pirated the 50+ year-old Rochester 2GC from my '63 Olds, rebuilt it with a $25 kit, machined a Q&D adapter to mount it to the EFI manifold, installed a junkyard vacuum-centrifugal advance HEI distributor, and she starts on the first twist of the key with fuel-consumption numbers easily as good as with the early EFI setup. But the point I'm trying to make is just this: when all of these computer-dependent wonder-machines age, fail and are no longer supported (you know, like Windows XP?), I'm going to be very interested in what happens to the majority of "old car" enthusiasts who will be left twisting in the wind. The best thing about the LS series of engines, from a performance, emissions AND economy standpoint, is the exceptionally good chamber and port design, and the fact that ALL the chambers and ports are pretty much identical. Not so with the older generation of American OHV V8 engines. And there are enough of them (LS-based engines) around now that there's good aftermarket (electronics and mechanical) support too. I'm honestly not too keen on the LS bottom end, and the fairly recent availability of a "traditional" SBC block casting that accepts the LS heads, but also utilizes all the bulletproof old-school SBC bottom-end parts, seems to me to be the best of all possible worlds. Just making conversation, too.
Shocking! Ancient Ford Engine Just Smashed Chevy LS3 Torque Numbers And it's a Y-block. "Shocking"? Well, not really. That's just the headline in the article at the link below. All it means is that in the hands of competent tuners and engine builders, the "old" and "ancient" non-computer-dependent engines can still make very respectable dyno numbers. http://www.hotrod.com/news/1506-2015-amsoil-engine-masters-competition-lineup-is-hot-this-summer/
Great project, just my kind of build. I'll be following your progress with much interest. If I were you, I wouldn't agonize too much over getting the rear tire diameter just exactly as it appears in the photos, as rear tire diameter could easily vary from meet to meet, being used as a means of fine-tuning the effective rear gearing.