Banana (asnredneck) wrote,

  • Mood:

Feedback please

So... I'm kinda frustrated right now and I would appreciate feedback from the 2, maybe 3 people who ever gander at this thing. The following is an e-mail that's flying around this week and it's bugging me. Without giving any background information to the reader, please tell me your interpretation of the e-mail and how it sounds to you. Am I sounding way too out of line, or is the other person I'm arguing with acting like I stole their thunder and now wants the world to know? It's ok, I know I sound like an ass so if you choose to comment, please be honest and tell me exactly what you think (think of this as your chance to call me names and not have me feel bad about it).

I need outside response and I'm hoping you folks can be the mirror reflecting towards me things that I can't see. Thanks in advance.

It would appear from your last email that the matter of how I run my area of responsibility is of concern to you, for what ever reason I am not sure. Let me take this opportunity to once again state my position on the subject of MY responsibilities and how this subject may relate to your area.

I began this year as the Hydraulics Chair and unless there has been a change to which I have not been informed, I remain such. This fact having been stated, I will once again explain to you my position concerning the Hydraulics area.

The Hydraulic area of the 2006/2007 Rose Float Committee is MY responsibility and I will be involved in all aspects of my area. The term "all aspects" will include such items as the plumbing of the cylinders, hydraulic pumps, filling the reservoir, or even rearranging a wrench within my area. This statement will NOT be reviewed or challenged by you unless you have been given the responsibility of my area. To reiterate, you are not to to do anything hydraulically related without my prior explicit approval.

I have attempted to bring this matter to the attention of the Committee to which, it appears, you have assumed the position of spokesman. I have re-stated my position concerning my area once again. I would think that this matter is now closed and should you feel that there is additional information required, you may contact me.


Hydraulics Chair
2006/2007 Cal Poly Rose Float Committee


Yung L wrote:
Yes, you should have been informed about the hydraulic reservoir being filled on Sunday and that's a faux pas on my part and for that I apologize. However, let's get one thing straight. You were tasked with getting the hydraulic components together ever since the BEGINNING of the summer and it took months of prodding and poking before any progress was made. Even then the hydraulic system sat waiting for attention for many weekends when it would have been much easier to get the suction hose replaced and the system bled before reinstalling the engine cage. Instead it was not.

If you were concerned about the job being done incorrectly, then that is a mute point. Both James and I have worked with the hydraulics system as long as you have and it's not rocket science to pour oil from a drum into a spout. Before we even did the job, we were briefed by Andrew on the precautions to observe. Precautions which you were not even aware of up until that point. In the event that anything would have gone wrong, we would have fixed the problem as it is our responsibility since it would have been on our watch.

There is nothing more to discuss here. You can either step up to the plate and get the hydraulics work done, or be thankful that someone else like James is willing to jump in and get the work that was supposed to have been done months ago in the span of 2 hours.

If you want to argue your point some more, you can reply to me directly instead of dragging this out in front of everyone's e-mail inbox. You have my number and my e-mail address.

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: [CPPRF Committee] Status of Limbo Track Mechanism

I'd like to address my concerns with the progression of the float's construction. My concerns in the past have gone unmentioned, as they have not directly affected me, until recently, when my concerns have escalated to frustrations. First and foremost, I would like to address how the reservoir was filled without anyone corresponding with me as to what was happening. I should be present for such a major hydraulic event, and in my absence proper communication with me is essential to ensuring actions are carried out properly, however minuscule they may seem. It is absolutely unfathomable that the only time I would find out is after the fact by happening into my e-mail inbox and reading an unrelated message. This is unacceptable, and I would appreciate it if any concerns relating to the hydraulics of the float be directly relayed to me, and prior approval of any action assured, before anything is done.

This is not a unique occurrence, but rather an event reflective of an underlying attitude which I feel many committee members share. My concern is specific to an apparent "hurried, at whatever cost, get-it-done" attitude. This is very concerning to me, as mistakes are being made and hence the overall end-product is being jeopardized. I would like to mention here, that in no way am I trying to harangue or belittle any member of this committee; in fact I really appreciate everything that everyone has done, and the excellent progress that we have all made, together.

That being said, possibly at the next committee meeting we can discusss these issues further.



P.S. As to the shortcomings of the current hydraulic motor, a proper motor can be purchased to make the limbo mechanism work properly. So far in my brief research, I have come across a low-speed, hi-torque motor that produces between 307.5 and 323.8 lb - ft of torque. With the current 3.5:1 reducer, that equates to torque around 1076 to 1133.4 lb - ft of torque. All you have to do now is the proper mass moment of inertia and friction calculations to determine the maximum required torque needed and work from there.

David Black wrote:
I'm exhausted. After trying to get it to work until 1am on Saturday night/sunday morning, and from 12:30-6:00 PM today, I have concluded that there is no possible way the limbo track mechanism will function with a heavy steel penguin attached. I have added a ~3.5:1 chain and sprocket reduction from the motor, but currently, it does not even function with no penguins attached. The method of linking the sleds to the drive chain is causing binding. I will be reverting back to the previous method of linking, using a small length of chain. Hopefully once this is done, the sleds will go around the track.

Anyway, now you're probably wondering what the purpose of making the mechanism work is if we cannot have a penguin atop. Well, perhaps we can have a lightweight penguin. I am researching inflatable and stuffed penguins. It is possible that we could carve penguins out of foam, but that takes a lot of time.

Also, on one sled, the caster wheel mounts are getting pwned (they are bending); they are the cheap junk ones. I need to purchase the good ones like the other one has, and install all 12 of those. Once I have the parts, this is something anyone who can use a wrench can do.

I imagine I'll be at the lab after class most days this week (unfortunately) trying to get this thing to work. Call the lab or call me if you'd like to come by and help.

Special thanks to James Eadie and Yung for coming out today and filling up the hydrualic reservoir, and special thanks to Jen for coming out today and working on some more shaping and elements and things of the sort.


  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.