A message from a COBB engineer
Feb 24, 2011, 03:18 PM
#46
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Meridian, ID
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can share some behind the scenes information that may change your point of view.
In early 2010 we came to the realization that we were overextended with the number of platforms we were trying to support without the staff resources to support them at the level we felt they deserved. In June of 2010, we made the difficult decision to stop development on several of the platforms in order to allow us to refocus our efforts on what we considered our core products, being Subaru turbos, EVO X and Ralliart, MAZDASPEED3 and Nissan GT-R.
At that time, the Nissan GT-R platform was the only market we felt we were supporting at an appropriate level. Not because we had more engineers working on it, but because of how that team operated. They had formed a tight team that included an ECU reverse engineer, a firmware engineer, a tuning software engineer and a calibrator. The entire team interacted with the GT-R community through forums and emails, listened to what their customers' likes and dislikes were and implemented solutions that met their needs.
We recently reorganized the engineering organization into Platform Groups that duplicate the Nissan GT-R team. In stating that I was the lead engineer on the EVO X, that really means that I am the EVO Expert Group Lead, and like the GT-R Expert Group, our team is made up of an ECU engineer, firmware engineer, tuning software engineer and calibrator. The performance of these new teams is starting to show real promise. A lot of progress has been made recently on all of the platforms we support, even if this progress is not yet visible. Several platforms, including EVO X, required cleaning-up and catching-up due to our resources being overextended for some time.
So while we at COBB are excited about the changes we have made and the plans we have for the platforms we support, and that many of you might share his "believe it when you see it" point of view. We don't expect this communication to change your minds at this point, but we do hope that it provides some insight into the efforts we have been making behind the scenes to better meet the EVO X community's needs as well as lets you know that we are listening, and working hard to execute the features and functionality that has been requested.
Thanks for reading
-EVO expert group
In early 2010 we came to the realization that we were overextended with the number of platforms we were trying to support without the staff resources to support them at the level we felt they deserved. In June of 2010, we made the difficult decision to stop development on several of the platforms in order to allow us to refocus our efforts on what we considered our core products, being Subaru turbos, EVO X and Ralliart, MAZDASPEED3 and Nissan GT-R.
At that time, the Nissan GT-R platform was the only market we felt we were supporting at an appropriate level. Not because we had more engineers working on it, but because of how that team operated. They had formed a tight team that included an ECU reverse engineer, a firmware engineer, a tuning software engineer and a calibrator. The entire team interacted with the GT-R community through forums and emails, listened to what their customers' likes and dislikes were and implemented solutions that met their needs.
We recently reorganized the engineering organization into Platform Groups that duplicate the Nissan GT-R team. In stating that I was the lead engineer on the EVO X, that really means that I am the EVO Expert Group Lead, and like the GT-R Expert Group, our team is made up of an ECU engineer, firmware engineer, tuning software engineer and calibrator. The performance of these new teams is starting to show real promise. A lot of progress has been made recently on all of the platforms we support, even if this progress is not yet visible. Several platforms, including EVO X, required cleaning-up and catching-up due to our resources being overextended for some time.
So while we at COBB are excited about the changes we have made and the plans we have for the platforms we support, and that many of you might share his "believe it when you see it" point of view. We don't expect this communication to change your minds at this point, but we do hope that it provides some insight into the efforts we have been making behind the scenes to better meet the EVO X community's needs as well as lets you know that we are listening, and working hard to execute the features and functionality that has been requested.
Thanks for reading
-EVO expert group
Feb 24, 2011, 03:18 PM
#47
Evolving Member
Feb 24, 2011, 03:19 PM
#48
I can share some behind the scenes information that may change your point of view.
In early 2010 we came to the realization that we were overextended with the number of platforms we were trying to support without the staff resources to support them at the level we felt they deserved. In June of 2010, we made the difficult decision to stop development on several of the platforms in order to allow us to refocus our efforts on what we considered our core products, being Subaru turbos, EVO X and Ralliart, MAZDASPEED3 and Nissan GT-R.
At that time, the Nissan GT-R platform was the only market we felt we were supporting at an appropriate level. Not because we had more engineers working on it, but because of how that team operated. They had formed a tight team that included an ECU reverse engineer, a firmware engineer, a tuning software engineer and a calibrator. The entire team interacted with the GT-R community through forums and emails, listened to what their customers' likes and dislikes were and implemented solutions that met their needs.
We recently reorganized the engineering organization into Platform Groups that duplicate the Nissan GT-R team. In stating that I was the lead engineer on the EVO X, that really means that I am the EVO Expert Group Lead, and like the GT-R Expert Group, our team is made up of an ECU engineer, firmware engineer, tuning software engineer and calibrator. The performance of these new teams is starting to show real promise. A lot of progress has been made recently on all of the platforms we support, even if this progress is not yet visible. Several platforms, including EVO X, required cleaning-up and catching-up due to our resources being overextended for some time.
So while we at COBB are excited about the changes we have made and the plans we have for the platforms we support, and that many of you might share his "believe it when you see it" point of view. We don't expect this communication to change your minds at this point, but we do hope that it provides some insight into the efforts we have been making behind the scenes to better meet the EVO X community's needs as well as lets you know that we are listening, and working hard to execute the features and functionality that has been requested.
Thanks for reading
-EVO expert group
In early 2010 we came to the realization that we were overextended with the number of platforms we were trying to support without the staff resources to support them at the level we felt they deserved. In June of 2010, we made the difficult decision to stop development on several of the platforms in order to allow us to refocus our efforts on what we considered our core products, being Subaru turbos, EVO X and Ralliart, MAZDASPEED3 and Nissan GT-R.
At that time, the Nissan GT-R platform was the only market we felt we were supporting at an appropriate level. Not because we had more engineers working on it, but because of how that team operated. They had formed a tight team that included an ECU reverse engineer, a firmware engineer, a tuning software engineer and a calibrator. The entire team interacted with the GT-R community through forums and emails, listened to what their customers' likes and dislikes were and implemented solutions that met their needs.
We recently reorganized the engineering organization into Platform Groups that duplicate the Nissan GT-R team. In stating that I was the lead engineer on the EVO X, that really means that I am the EVO Expert Group Lead, and like the GT-R Expert Group, our team is made up of an ECU engineer, firmware engineer, tuning software engineer and calibrator. The performance of these new teams is starting to show real promise. A lot of progress has been made recently on all of the platforms we support, even if this progress is not yet visible. Several platforms, including EVO X, required cleaning-up and catching-up due to our resources being overextended for some time.
So while we at COBB are excited about the changes we have made and the plans we have for the platforms we support, and that many of you might share his "believe it when you see it" point of view. We don't expect this communication to change your minds at this point, but we do hope that it provides some insight into the efforts we have been making behind the scenes to better meet the EVO X community's needs as well as lets you know that we are listening, and working hard to execute the features and functionality that has been requested.
Thanks for reading
-EVO expert group
Hands down that would be a HUGE move / win on Cobbs part.
Last edited by razorlab; Feb 24, 2011 at 03:22 PM.
Feb 24, 2011, 03:22 PM
#49
Evolving Member
Feb 24, 2011, 03:32 PM
#51
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: DFW
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I care about is that I want some of the tephramods features w/ the AP. I think cobb should pay tephra for them so we can have these upgrades. Cobb developed similar things for the gtr, now bring them to the evo.
Yes, I'm talking about map switching...
Yes, I'm talking about map switching...
Feb 24, 2011, 03:37 PM
#52
Wow. Just saw this thread.
WE owe a TON of thanks and appreciation to Tephra as has been said. There's probably another hundred guys involved on some level with open source that are owed thanks on one level or another. Cobb is owed nothing IMO and are border line dishonest (best choice of words I can come up with to avoid editing, deletion or points) in my opinion.
So thanks to the open source guys, you make a free product better than anything else available for then stock ECU.
Please Tephra, do not work for the man.
WE owe a TON of thanks and appreciation to Tephra as has been said. There's probably another hundred guys involved on some level with open source that are owed thanks on one level or another. Cobb is owed nothing IMO and are border line dishonest (best choice of words I can come up with to avoid editing, deletion or points) in my opinion.
So thanks to the open source guys, you make a free product better than anything else available for then stock ECU.
Please Tephra, do not work for the man.
Feb 24, 2011, 03:38 PM
#53
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Meridian, ID
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Map switching is nothing new and like you said Cobb has already done this on the GTR why compensate someone who isn't a part of the development process?
Feb 24, 2011, 03:40 PM
#54
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: DFW
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol @ 'the man'
I'd call you 'the man' in the evo world David - well before Cobb.
And I do think it's extremely unprofessional for you to be badmouthing another shop... its not like you've never been accused of being dishonest either. ;-)
I'd call you 'the man' in the evo world David - well before Cobb.
And I do think it's extremely unprofessional for you to be badmouthing another shop... its not like you've never been accused of being dishonest either. ;-)
Feb 24, 2011, 03:41 PM
#55
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: DFW
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Cobb engineers develop map switching why would they pay Tephra? This is the part that is getting muddled that would be like ETS paying Xtremeboost a royalty for making an open dump down pipe just because he did it first on this platform.
Map switching is nothing new and like you said Cobb has already done this on the GTR why compensate someone who isn't a part of the development process?
Map switching is nothing new and like you said Cobb has already done this on the GTR why compensate someone who isn't a part of the development process?
Feb 24, 2011, 03:47 PM
#57
when i used to use ECUFLASH and evoscan i saw no need to spend 600+ for a cobb thingy. they are pointless and with what we have available for free it makes no sense at all to spend that money. and IMO what we have to offer is far more then that controller thing cob gives you. we get much more control over your tune,logging,tweaking. i have been off ecuflash for a while now. i fun a F-Con now and over the years i have donated to tephra and a few others who helped me. i feel everyone should donate to these guys and if you have not done so then thats wrong.
Feb 24, 2011, 03:53 PM
#58
Evolving Member
If Cobb engineers develop map switching why would they pay Tephra? This is the part that is getting muddled that would be like ETS paying Xtremeboost a royalty for making an open dump down pipe just because he did it first on this platform.
Map switching is nothing new and like you said Cobb has already done this on the GTR why compensate someone who isn't a part of the development process?
Map switching is nothing new and like you said Cobb has already done this on the GTR why compensate someone who isn't a part of the development process?
Granted it would suck if they just took a Tephra Mod and threw it into a COBB AP, even worse if they gave no credit to Tephra for it. But it was released Open Source. Of course, they risk their reputation big time if Tephra screwed something up and then one of their customers bricks an ECU or worse ventilates the engine block. So if they are smart they audit the code, validate and verify it, and provide post-sale support. Once again, a case where a commercial vendor provides something we don't get with a free download of Tephra Mod + ECUFlash + OpenPort.
EDIT: Rereading that I want to make it clear I don't think Tephra would ever knowingly push out something that could be dangerous, nor do I think he would be negligent in his testing. My point is that a commercial entity blindly implements someone else's code at their financial peril.
Last edited by Jumperalex; Feb 24, 2011 at 03:58 PM.
Feb 24, 2011, 03:54 PM
#59
Evolving Member
Note my comment about ignoring trolls ;-)
Feb 24, 2011, 03:58 PM
#60
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: DFW
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This entire debate confuses me. Should Buschur sue my engine builder because DB was the first person to sell a built block? Should I be ridiculed because I'm not using a buschur block in my car?
AP is a choice, and cobb spends the time and $ to develop the platform just as much as opensource ppl did. I like opensource, and I'd use it, but I'm local to a Cobb shop, and I know the shop does great work. So I paid a bit more for my tuning hardware. Its like if I paid extra for AMS stuff b/c I'm in Chicago.. the ease of service and support is worth the $.
This all changes if anyone can prove Cobb stole tephra code. Anyone??
AP is a choice, and cobb spends the time and $ to develop the platform just as much as opensource ppl did. I like opensource, and I'd use it, but I'm local to a Cobb shop, and I know the shop does great work. So I paid a bit more for my tuning hardware. Its like if I paid extra for AMS stuff b/c I'm in Chicago.. the ease of service and support is worth the $.
This all changes if anyone can prove Cobb stole tephra code. Anyone??