Project Standards

For the most part, the level of standards in our projects has been, and continues to be, incredibly consistent. Unfortunately, our level of standards is also very low. What does this actually mean, you ask? If you've already read through some of our project pages you've likely gotten a sense of this; under usual circumstances we tend to increase the quality of our work right up until it we achieve acceptable results. And then we stop, or go only far enough as to insure a more extended and pleasurable existence.

On the bright side, this means two things: one, there is always room for improvement in our projects and two, we're always learning new techniques and methods of not getting maimed. On the less bright side, few if any of our projects get much in the way of polish. Now, we have nothing against the Poles, they're excellent people and were troopers throughout much of the earlier 20th century, but usually by the time we neared the end of a project we were so ready to start the next one we were excited about that the first one never really got completed.

An obvious exception to this would be any work we do on our cars. Like when we replaced the rotors on the 328i. Don't finish the job? Bam, no wheels. So, sometimes we complete things thoroughly, but other times we just don't really want to spend the money on one thing.


When we're describing some of these projects, it may seem as though we're providing incredibly specific figures. Let me tell you something about these figures: they are only included because we have them at hand in one way or another, not because they're required, or, even worse, we made them up while writing because we wanted to include numbers, and the ones we came up with seemed reasonable. If you attempt to recreate any of these projects and you come across a figure that seems somewhat off… it probably is. If you come up with a more reasonable figure, let us know!


The driving force behind many of our decisions is convenience. We often choose methods that are more problematic in one way or another, but are ultimately more convenient. A perfect example of this is when we were casting. We chose to work with aluminium over lead simply because aluminium was plentiful, and it was harder for us to get our hands on lead. Molten aluminium is much more deadly (fumes, energy, etc) than molten lead, but it's what we had available. Likewise, we tend to stick with the first found solution to a given problem - even if that solution is not necessarily the best possible one. Often when we're reviewing a project we realize that the method we chose was obviously flawed in one way or another; but still we used it. Why? Because at it the time it was whatever solution we came across first.

What this means for you

What this means for you is that should you chose to follow in our footsteps we've laid the groundwork for something excellent, or so we like to think. What we've demonstrated for many of these projects is only ever as much as 50% of their total potential, usually less. If you're optimistic enough about it, this really is great, because it means that you can take things in whichever direction you choose. We leave instructions vague so you have more flexibility to make the project more “yours.”

standards.txt · Last modified: 2020/07/24 17:16 (external edit)
Driven by DokuWiki Recent changes RSS feed Valid CSS Valid XHTML 1.0