NordicSaab
NordicSaab Reader
1/16/16 5:52 a.m.

Link :Nissan Fired Its Le Mans Team Over E-Mail

When I first saw the specs on this car I wondered how it would compare to the more conventional designs... I guess we know now.

Woody
Woody MegaDork
1/16/16 7:09 a.m.

Maybe it's time to change the name again...

Knurled
Knurled MegaDork
1/16/16 7:18 a.m.

Nitpick: They were not fired over e-mail. They were fired VIA e-mail, or notified that their jobs were terminated via e-mail.

"fired over e-mail" sounds like they were terminated due to something they wrote.

Adrian_Thompson
Adrian_Thompson UltimaDork
1/16/16 7:41 a.m.
Knurled wrote: Nitpick: They were not fired over e-mail. They were fired VIA e-mail, or notified that their jobs were terminated via e-mail. "fired over e-mail" sounds like they were terminated due to something they wrote.

+1. I read it expecting to read they were fired over and email listing all the ways the cars sucked and how useless the management team were back in Japan.

Slippery
Slippery Dork
1/16/16 8:08 a.m.
Adrian_Thompson wrote:
Knurled wrote: Nitpick: They were not fired over e-mail. They were fired VIA e-mail, or notified that their jobs were terminated via e-mail. "fired over e-mail" sounds like they were terminated due to something they wrote.
+1. I read it expecting to read they were fired over and email listing all the ways the cars sucked and how useless the management team were back in Japan.

+2. I was confused.

Esoteric Nixon
Esoteric Nixon UltraDork
1/16/16 8:26 a.m.

While "via" would definitely be the best way to go, "over" is not wrong per se, just more ambiguous. Methinks "over" is just a holdover from the olden days of saying something like "Nissan Fired Its Le Mans Team Over The Phone", though we strangely referred to all phones as "the phone," whereas with email, we only use the definite article "the" to refer to a specific email.

markwemple
markwemple Dork
1/16/16 9:48 a.m.

From the same brain that gave them the delta wing. Wonder why it didn't do well. LOL.

iceracer
iceracer PowerDork
1/16/16 9:59 a.m.

You have to give them credit for trying something different.

Wall-e
Wall-e MegaDork
1/16/16 10:02 a.m.
Knurled wrote: "fired over e-mail" sounds like they were terminated due to something they wrote.

I expected Nissan exec tentacle porn pics were involved.

Trackmouse
Trackmouse HalfDork
1/16/16 10:11 a.m.

I know this sounds like "Hank Hill", but: "can't they just do something normal?"

Kreb
Kreb UltraDork
1/16/16 10:39 a.m.
Trackmouse wrote: I know this sounds like "Hank Hill", but: "can't they just do something normal?"

I'd be happy if they just made a leaner, crisper version of the Z.

That said, I love to see them trying. It's just a shame that their creative designs haven't bore success. Every time something innovative flops, a few more project managers go "note to self: creativity is dangerous. Boring sells."

WOW Really Paul?
WOW Really Paul? MegaDork
1/16/16 5:05 p.m.
markwemple wrote: From the same brain that gave them the delta wing. Wonder why it didn't do well. LOL.

I thought Gurney had more influence on the DeltaWing than Nissan anyways.....

BlueInGreen44
BlueInGreen44 Dork
1/16/16 5:42 p.m.

One of my favorite sayings: "Different for the sake of better is good. Different for the sake of different usually isn't good."

fanfoy
fanfoy Dork
1/16/16 5:52 p.m.

The sucky part is that, just like the Deltawing, we won't ever know how it would have performed. The people bashing those concepts have obviously never done any product developement. To say that it's a failure after only a half-season of half-hearted efforts is just idiotic. Especially when you go after cars that have a half-century of development behind them. I do think that they took too many new approches at the same time to have any chance of success. At least, if they would have started with a proven drivetrain and ERS, they would have had a better idea of it's potential.

grafmiata
grafmiata SuperDork
1/16/16 6:13 p.m.
fanfoy wrote: The sucky part is that, just like the Deltawing, we won't ever know how it would have performed. The people bashing those concepts have obviously never done any product developement. To say that it's a failure after only a half-season of half-hearted efforts is just idiotic. Especially when you go after cars that have a half-century of development behind them. I do think that they took too many new approches at the same time to have any chance of success. At least, if they would have started with a proven drivetrain and ERS, they would have had a better idea of it's potential.

Yep. While I honestly HATE the phrase thinking outside the box, I appreciate the people in racing who do it. That's where the innovation comes, especially in the last couple decades, where it's getting harder to find that loop-hole in the rules to try something different.

""

Trackmouse
Trackmouse HalfDork
1/16/16 6:23 p.m.

That's right too. You bright a one year planned fwd and had high expectations for it to compete with a tried and true pedigree??? I mean, c'mon!

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
52oseb7PqWfj2cC2zn1LrOKuGT5JIPTNIlMKLwKS7V7ANPm9r8du9vo8Ha618vc8