Bob I just reread it because it did not make sense to me. <br> <br> Again I see that he is asking for a consulting fee to attend his own challenge, and also that he want's ATS to forward the money to TDR But He will bring it with him.<br><br> If I am reading this incorrectly, please show me so I can state my mistake here publicly. I am not intent on rediculing anybody, I just can not make any sense out of this. That is the reason I suggest that perhaps it has been altered. <br><br> Is this not what it says?

 

They're both putting up $10K the winner will take the other's $$$$ home.
A third party will hold the $20K until a winner is determined.

 

No sunglasses here, and I read it the same as Larry does. Maybe ATS should charter him a lear jet for the round trip?<br><br>I agree with the challenge except the test equipment being used. The question everyone wants answered is if the strategy controller can cause these claimed bind shifts... not some transex controller. Nonetheless, this whole deal sounds a bit old fashioned... pistols at dawn... that sort of thing. It'll be interesting to see the results.

 

From the &quot;Challage&quot; website.....to ATS.......<br>&quot;Please forward the CASH to the rocky mountain TDR president, that would be acceptable to me.....&quot;

 

SFtopSGT

I am extremely busy so i dont have a lot of time for this cloak and daggar stuff. The challenge was accepted by Joel Richards at least that is what he said. As i dont know him from a hole in the wall so i can only take him at his word. He said &quot; I will accept your challenge &quot; those were his exact words, he was personally accepting the challenge, not ATS, not emjay. He also went on the tdr site and stated he was not a vendor, so forgive me if i appear confused as to why i would drive all that way without making sure all the details were not taken care of before i get there.

If i show up there and dont have the cash to hand over till before the testing is done how much creditability do you think i will have. Lets stay on topic and let this thing be finally settled.

Now you are asking if i am asking ATS to pre-pay. I don't know is he ATS, i can see he is a moderator on their forum but i did not know he was ATS. One is led to believe he is not if you read his disclaimer on the tdr.

As i said i am busy,dont have time to keep up with all the who's with who stuff .

Lets just get it done.

Bill Kondolay
Diesel Transmission Technology
Transmission Builder
www.dieseltrans.com

 

followed by:<br><br>

 

[quote author=Shovelhead link=board=7;threadid=8406;start=75#87423 date=1041543098]<br>They're both putting up $10K the winner will take the other's $$$$ home.<br>A third party will hold the $20K until a winner is determined.<br>[/quote]<br><br> Thats the way I understand it as well, I am just confused as to why 1 party of a challenge should be expected to adhere to different rules than the other party.<br><br> Seems like A nonbiased individual makes the rules that they Both adhere to equally is the answer. <br><br> Going in to any thing like this where one individual has different guidelines or expects preferential treatment, is a sure fire way to accomplish nothing at all.<br><br> Fair is fair and it should apply equally to both parties is all I am saying here. Otherwise the whole thing ends up as a sham and it never ends!<br>

 

Yup ... so why doesn't DTT forward the &quot;CASH&quot; as well ..... <br><br>Consulting fees ... travel expenses HA ...... he can write that off...... this whole thing is a joke ... make a man wonder about DTT's methods and motives.......<br><br>I agree with banshee ...... use the emjay ...... that's what DTT thinks will cause the bindup .....

 

I understand your point Bill, Nobody trusts anybody obviously. But to ask for payment to attend your own challenge makes no sense to me.<br><br> Both of you agree to a time and place and do it!. Just do it equally and fairly.<br><br> Pick the person to hold the cash and then when he has it in hand from both of you the deal is go. You guys can agree on who that party will be.<br><br> But remember you made the challenge and you are not the only person who is busy. Just hold yourself to the same level of fairness that you expect in return. It will only benefit the overall outcome and not end up prejudiced.

 

I'm about ready to swap to a 6-speed so I don't have to worry about this auto tranny BS any more. &gt;


Quote: from banshee
this whole deal sounds a bit old fashioned... pistols at dawn... that sort of thing.

'bout says it all....don't it?

Still sitting on the sidelines......... :-[

 

People! I am not trying to discredit Mr Kondolay here, I just wanted clarification on the issue. I was confused and he himself admits being confused over it. <br> That happens to everybody.<br><br> <br><br>

 

I may throw in my 2c.... nothing compared to the pot.

First- the &quot;bet&quot; was about whether you can or cannot cause a binding upshift by manipulating the governnor circuit. So by both parties agreeing on a controller that will just do this, and this being a controller Bill knows to operate is fair.
I'd be interested if the parameters that cause the binding upshift are within the specs of the Emjay or not. ( But this is not what the bet is about as I read it)

Also as I read it Bill thought that the guy who accepts the challenge is a private person. Therefore I think it's not too offensive to assure that this guy has the cash.

I think it would be nice to have an Emjay representative there .

I do not have a dog in this hunt.... but I am really interested in the results.
The idea of donating the mayor part of the money to charity is very nice.

ps. Maybe somebody can post a link to the thread on the TDR... I'm no member there
AlpineRAM

 

I was under the opinion the challenge was made to ATS and that Joel acepted it on behalf of ATS. I could be wrong!<br><br> This is why I asked for somebody to tell me if I was reading it wrong. I agree with AlpineRam that the money should go up first but not for just one individual. <br> <br> I am old school myself, a duel is what this is plain and simple &amp; both parties should be expected to receive Fair and Impartial treatment. That is the only way I have ever seen it done successfully.<br><br> Bear in mind this keeps it fair for both parties!<br><br> Regardless of what anyone may think otherwise, I have no other motive here.

 

I think everyone needs to slow down a bit. If this is going to happen, then a disinterested party should be involved and set the rules with agreements from both sides. That person should be a part of the entire process and either judge the event alone, or pick a set of disinterested judges. If not, then I don't think it'll solve anything.

As for what kind of equipment to use, I agree with others that it should be the emjay controller in the test since the major part of this controversy revolves around that controller in the first place. Heck, I don't care, use two or three controllers and run them in seperate events. my 4 and a half cents.

Jack

 

There is no way this challenge will ever happen. <br><br>Bill K, shame on you. You want a consulting fee to come to your own challenge(how much?) and the rest would go to charity--what a joke- it's easy to say that when you know your not going to have to do it. Then telling your opponent that you're sure they would want to give their winnings to charity also. Shouldn't that be their choice?? Unbelievable<br><br>You obviously don't want this event to happen<br><br>Here is my prediction &quot;it wont&quot;