From:	Fetterman, Pat [Glen.Fetterman@Infineum.com]
Sent:	Monday, October 27, 2008 8:23 PM
To:	a.budd@isp-institute.com; Bill Buscher (E-mail); Bill Larch; Campbell, Bob; Cathy Devlin; charlie.passut@aftonchemical.com; Dan Pridemore; Dick Patrick (E-mail); Glen Fetterman; Greg Miiller; greg.shank@volvo.com; Hind Abi-Akar; James Gutzwiller; James Matasic (E-mail); Jeff Clark; Jesse Hamilton; Jim McGeehan; jim.moritz@intertek.com; Jim Rutherford; joe.franklin@intertek.com; John Haegelin; Keith Selby; kenneth.goshorn@volvo.com; Mark Cooper; Matt Urbanak (E-mail); Norbert Nann (E-mail); Riccardo Conti; Ron Buck; Scott Harold; Scott Richards (E-mail); Steve Kennedy; Tom Wingfield; Victor Kersey; Wim Van Dam
Cc:	Alessi, Mike
Subject:	Unconfirmed minutes of the October 27, 2008 teleconference.
Participants -
Ron Buck; Bob Campbell; Mark Cooper (Chairman); Jeff Clark; Riccardo Conti; Pat Fetterman (secretary) Ken Goshorn; Jesse Hamilton; Ryan Johnson; Jim Matasic; Jim Moritz; Scott Richards; Jim Rutherford; Greg Shank.

Minutes -
Mark Cooper opened the meeting with a review of where we ended our 10/23 teleconference and asked if everyone was O.K. withwhere we are. Scott Richards asked why we aren’t correcting all the way back to the original targets, and Jim Rutherford noted that those targets were based on only six data points. In response to a repeated question from Mark, the group consensus seemed to be that everyone is O.K with the decisions taken.
Jim R walked the group through the two analyses which he had previously circulated and noted that he saw that we have two options:
1) Apply corrections across the board, or
2) Apply corrections only where needed.
Jim noted that his analysis shows that looking at liner wear, all ring batches are significant, and that batch R rings are "different" from the current test target.
In response to a question, Jim noted that he had also looked at oil batch as a variable, and there is no response to oil batch.
Looking at TRWL, lab is significant, ring batch is moderately significant, and batches P and R are different.
Looking at EOT lead, ring batch and lab*ring batch are significant, but different things happened at different labs.
Looking at 250-300 hr lead and oil consumption, there is nothing going on.
There was a short discussion regarding how to implement any correction factors and which, if any parameters require correction. This culminated in a motion by Scott Richards with a second from Greg Shank to exclude both lead parameters and oil consumption from any correction. The motion passed with no dissent from the group.
Again this was followed with a discussion of how to implement the corrections, and this resulted in a motion by Bob Campbell with a second by Jim Matasic to implement a liner wear correction factor using a multiplier of 0.58 based on the arithmetic agerage data. The motion passed with (6) yes, (0) no and (4) waive.
Bob C offered another motion with a second by Jim Matasic to correct TRWL using a multiplier of 0.75. Following a brief discussion, this motion failed with (2) yes, (2) no and (6) waive.
Mark C. moved, and Greg Shank seconded that no correction factor should be applied to TRWL, and this motion passed with (4) yes, (2) no and (4) waive.
It was noted that the approved liner wear correction factor will be applied to all tests run with batch R rings, and Jeff Clark asked that all labs resubmit their reference tests with the correction factor applied.
Mark C. asked if we still see a need for a face to face meeting, and the group agreed there is no immediate need. However, Jim R. noted that we still need to address the issue of liner wear profiles, but this needs data from the ACC.
Jeff C noted that he will recheck the calibration status of all stands, but there will ne no net gain or loss of calibration status for any labs or stands.
Scott R. made a motion with a second by Riccardo Conti that stands currently calibrated with "old" ring batches may run candidates with batch R rings and use the approved correction factor, and this motion passed without dissent.
Bob C moved and Jim Moritz seconded that, "All candidates must be run with batch R rings and "old" hardware will be reserved for T-11 testing, with the exception that "split" ring tests may be run through year end 2008. This motion passed with (10) yes, (0) no and (0) waive.
Ron Buck reported that TEI have (3) sets of T-10 rings, and they will be exchanged for the T-11 top rings at the three labs currently holding T-11 ring sets. He also noted that an order has been placed for a new batch of T-11 rings with a roughly 8 week delivery time.
Mark C. wii draft a letter to the ACC requesting liner wear profile data from candidate tests to help develop new wear profile reference data for the T-12 test. The possibility of directly approaching test sponsors was discussed, if we are not successful in getting the data fron the ACC.
Bob C. noted that it might be possible to request just delta data by cylinder location, if that makes data sharing less sensitive. E.g., rather than reporting actual wear profiles, the data could be presented as: Cyl - 1 = mean -3, Cyl - 2 = mean + 2, etc. throughout the six cylinders.
With that thought, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Pat