Posted by jingram on June 05, 1998 at 03:25:39:
I was recently informed about this so called wonderous kit that a fellow named T.O.O is going to soon be putting out on the market for a rather reasonable price. I am going to say that I am very skeptical about this kit and hopefully after reading all the posts that I have read, I can get the answers straight out of the horses mouth. First, how do you plan on running such high boost levels i.e. 17-24psi on 92 octane fuel? Someone mentioned 400 hp on an integra. That is seriously pushing the limits on the internals of the motor. Second, I was glad to see that your kit was going to be rather inclusive with such things as fuel pump, injectors, etc, but what is this about boost control? Everything I have seen in the past with superchargers and boost, has to deal with the pulley system. The only way to change boost levels is to swap pulleys. Its not as if there is a wastgate or something that can control the amount of boost like on a turbo. True, the JR kit has a loop feed on the SC, but this has nothing to do with boost levels. Can you explain this to me or is it part of the confidentiality that needs to be maintained!?! Third, traction control?? This must be a rather revolutionary system. Currently there are several setups: quafe, viscous, welded, etc. The type R LSD from Kenji is the cheapest for all you integra owners. Your system would have to be electronic of some sort, but that doesn't mean that you don't need the proper hardware in place, in other words big$$$. I understand that you can't share the info about this, but again I am very skeptical. Lastly, what about the counter rotation on honda motors? The two kits I have seen i.e., JR and Powerdyne have had serious difficulties with this. There is also the issue of room in the engine compartment. JR had major difficluty with their kits for the B16a and B18c1, mostly due to the lack of space, and Powerdyne had to trim some sheetmetal off the firewall if I remember correctly. Lastly, are you going to be recommending a head gasket swap to lower the compression ratio? This is another thing that JR had great difficulty with, and traditionally it has been the case with all forms of forced induction. High CRs and forced induction don't get along! How have you solved this problem? I hope you are at least able to answer some of these questions. I really appreciate the fact that there is an attempt to stir things up on the import scene. Traditional isn't always better, just look at DRAG and F-Max. F-Max makes a much better quality kit that is very inclusive for nearly the same price. They are a relatively new company and if you guys produce a quality product for the price you say, then you to will be in this same category. I wish you luck in your endeavor and if your kit is a success I will be one of the first in line as I love the torque that a SC produces, however until I hear some definitive answers and some explanations on my questions without hollow promises about how everything must be kept secret, I am not going to hold my breath!
Posted by NITRO on June 05, 1998 at 21:06:06:
In Reply to: SC critique: Nitro and T.O.O please read and if at all possible answer! posted by body on June 05, 1998 at 03:25:39:
First, we recomend use of a Quaife, it is not part of the traction control
system. The traction control simply allows the driver to optimize the rate
of front tire slip for optimum traction and acceleration. The system is
currently under consideration for numerous patents. The ability to regulate
boost is also currently involved in the patent process, as T.O.O. has built
the two systems indepently as well as in one "box" for the Honda's.
I mean no offense, but our N/A engines will often exceed 23-1 mechanical compression ratios, and we don't close the intake valve late. Fifteen years ago, after twenty years of research, T.O.O. introduced the world to the creation of the optimum combustion space theory. This incorporated swirl inducing inlet ports, piston and chamber that accelerated the swirl, swirl combustion, "high" compression, cams designed to "fit" the chamber and piston, altered cyl. pressure curves, and the ability to make power with very low brake fuel specifics. T.O.O.'s reluctance to discuss the technology at length in magazines caused considerable condemnation, and many "experts" in the field suggested that it was all a crock. Well here we are, and everything in domestic and international circles is now based on this "new" technology. T.O.O. made quite a lot of money during those fifteen years providing assistance to people who didn't believe in the technology, but felt it was worth a second look.
I might suggest that the same sort of situation exists today. We raise the static compression ratios on engines we boost, and if we didn't, they'd detonate. We certainly would never use a thick head gasket, as that would invite detonation, as well as increasing HC output.
As I mentioned, a lot of people didn't believe what we were doing fifteen years ago, but the few who did or simply didn't care dominated almost every form of competition world wide.
I can't speak for T.O.O., but I can tell you that the system does what we say, and I suspect that our attorneys will say when we can describe how it works.
Posted by jingram (firstname.lastname@example.org)
on June 06, 1998 at 03:39:53:
In Reply to: Re: SC critique: Nitro and T.O.O please read and if at all possible answer! posted by body on June 05, 1998 at 21:06:06:
Well like I said, I'm not surprised by your answers. What you say sounds interesting and I'm looking forward to seeing your kit, but again all your answers are purely sidestepping the issues at hand even if under the guise of "necessity"
Posted by NITRO on June 06, 1998 at 06:59:13:
In Reply to: Re: SC critique: Nitro and T.O.O please read and if at all possible answer! posted by body on June 06, 1998 at 03:39:53:
What began as a hobby has ended up costing a lot in both time and money.
Although this program is going to operate at "cost", it's not meant to
loose money, and revealing proprietary tecnhical data is a sure way to
end up on the short end.
I'm glad you like our answers, and I wish you a wonderful and sucessful life. Hopefully you'll never have to deal with or work for a company that has a "need to know" policy. That being the case, sounds like retail is the place for you.
Posted by jingram (email@example.com)
on June 06, 1998 at 18:27:09:
In Reply to: Re: You Obviously Have No Business Experience, Or Your Business Is Less Than Successful ... posted by body on June 06, 1998 at 06:59:13:
Again, I understand your aspect on the issue, and the need of you guys to protect proprietal data about your project, however at the same time certain answers like the ability to run so much power on the stock internals of the motor does not in anyway threaten the "important" technical data you are withholding for your "obvious" reasons. Secondly, if you are in the middle of your patenting process, other companies who tried to copy your idea would be stupid, as they could face serious legal repercussions. Lastly, as for your implication that retail is the place for me, is both wrong and uncalled for. Actually I am a Masters student in education. I will not take offense to that comment as I have worked retail in the past while persuing my B.A. I know how dificult and poor paying that it can be. If you feel the need to "put me in my place" that is fine, but until you provide some solid explanations about certain issues that in NO way threaten the existence of your company I will not be put in my place.
Posted by NITRO on June 06, 1998 at 22:42:26:
In Reply to: Re: You Obviously Have No Business Experience, Or Your Business Is Less Than Successful ... posted by body on June 06, 1998 at 18:27:09:
If you'd been in this business long enough, and had the Vice President
of Engineering at Chrysler tell you and your legal staff, that they(Chrysler)
want your technology, but the only way they'd consider buying it would
be if you patented the component, and then remind you that Chrysler employs
25 attorneys who specialise in breaking patents, or making slight changes,
you'd think twice about answering some of your questions.
It's very difficult to patent a "concept", and most patents on mechanical devices require strict "blue prints"accompanying the "description" of how it works. When you have something which is unique enough to patent, every possible iteration must be addressed, because if you don't, someone will buy a copy of the patent, change an angle here, and a radius there, and your patent has served as a blueprint for a competitor to make some small changes, and get away with it. Now he might not achieve 100% of your efficiency, but he'll get 95% for the price of a copy of the patent.
We normally don't bother with the process, as patents look good in resumes, or on the wall, but for every one that's actually paid off, there are thousands that were a total waste of time and money. Typically, we sell technology, and if our customer wants to patent it, fine...we've been paid.
Regarding the boost and broken parts. The laws of pressures and thermodynamics will one day be rewritten. We and several other "groups" found years ago that if you successfully run a number that "the books" say is past the limit, you don't stop, thinking "we were really lucky". On the other hand we don't say, "here's a rule, let's see if we can break it". We simply don't bother with the books, and we concentrate on the project we're working. If the goals are readily achievable, we press for more. When we find a limit, we look for other avenues, and if you look hard enough, and combine several approaches that didn't work in some earlier tests, sometimes the limit is no longer there. We tend to believe that we've the ability to dream, and we also possess the engineering and prototyping abilities to make our "dreams" happen, and it's only afterward that we learn that "you can't do that".
If you do some research on cylinder pressure curves and how they relate to crank/rod angle, you'll be way ahead. If you don't understand the mechanical geometry involved, what we do certainly doesn't make any sense.
We've conducted and built all the variable compression ratio engines for government funded programs with the Livermore labs as well as Sandia Labs for almost twenty years. The purpose in "parts" of these programs was to develop a means to curtail detonation. We learned a lot, and so did they. We also have the ability to photograph the combustion process with quartz single cylinder engines we've built for such studies. We also are involved in combustion studies that will ultimately allow engines to run on "multi fuels", including "air" alone.
I'm not about to sit here and tell you that if someone runs an engine that doesn't have reasonable "combustion space", constantly at high rpm at 20+ lbs. boost, that it'll stay together, but's that's why we're including some safe guards in the system. Everyone wants to run 10's, and they see it with turbos. We're simply providing a "better" way, that's streetable, and inspectable as well.
There's not a lot more that I can discuss regarding some of this. There are a few board members who have knowledge of what we've done over the years. There are many more who don't, and, as what we're doing is different from the "accepted way", simply means that we started with a clean sheet, and didn't "study" the norm.
I appreciate, and understand your views, but T.O.O.'s been involved in contraversy since I first met him..in fact that's why I met him, and it's been a rocky road ever since. However if you look at the rough road traveled, every program has put us higher than we began on the scale of knowledge.
Keep asking, and you'll get as many answers as we can provide. There will be some pertinant information regarding product status and pricing / credit programs shortly.
Posted by jingram (firstname.lastname@example.org)
on June 06, 1998 at 23:20:04:
In Reply to: Re: You Obviously Have No Business Experience, Or Your Business Is Less Than Successful ... posted by body on June 06, 1998 at 22:42:26:
Thanks, that was the best post that I have seen you make. Very interesting and informative.
Posted by NITRO on June 07, 1998 at 09:15:00:
In Reply to: All I can say is WOW, thank you very much for your excellent post! posted by body on June 06, 1998 at 23:20:04:
Not to say that board members don't know their "stuff", but the workings
of this industry, especially when you're in between two giant companies
like Eaton and Bayer, you have to be careful or you're squeezed out of
the picture. Having Bayer make carbon/thermoplastic rotors for the Eaton
blower started as a simple "can it be done", between the two of us. We're
already having Bayer make the manifolding for the system. Eaton "heard"
what we were doing, and wanted blower cases as well, especially after testing
some of the light weight rotors.
As you might expect, should a new case be built, we want to make some design improvments for even greater efficiency. We've considered simply doing our own blower, but Eaton has been very accomodating, and we want them in the program. As Eaton's reputation and sales continue to grow with OE manufacturers, they want to offer the superior light weight rotors, and we simply want to make sure that our program isn't lost in the process. The little guy isn't that important when two large companies decide to "do business".
When you combine this with the patent issues, not only will you understand the situation better, but now you also understand that we're not dealing with aluminum castings, and conventional blowers.
We look everywhere possible for an edge, and having access to companies like Bayer is one of the things that provide various advantages in cost, weight, and performance.
I appreciate your return post, we'll discuss these things more in the future.