RG, That is a strange blower in your photo. The only units made that were not polished were test units. Also the pulley is not hard anodized. That look's like a mid '80's production unit. I remember one person requesting it not be polished but I can't remember who it was. There was another sold to the Canadian telephone company to pressurize wire ducts. That was to keep water intrusion out of some failing pipelines where they didn't want to dig them up.

But if my memory is correct they split it up into two compressors to use at two sites. I know that because they requested the extra parts at some later date.

It has the single right side inlet which is standard configuration. It uses the four brl carb nipple and not the Weber side draft. That's all I can tell from the photo.

BTW, The axial flow has seen favor from the FAA as a aero supercharger. They favor it over all others as it will spin freely if a belt is lost and if it were to seize, air will be restricted, but enough air will go through to allow cruising and landing power.

Speaking of recirculation, can you just oversize a non-PD supercharger so it has, say, 8psi at 3000(engine)RPM, and then variably bleed air (pressure) from its outlet back to its inlet (ECU controlled, of course) to keep the manifold pressure from going any higher as RPM goes higher? The same bleed circuit could be used to "unload" the power consumption during crusing, as the Eatons do.

Can this type of recirculation be used with an axial flow SC?


To a certain extent it could be done. But in reality it cannot cover a large range. In both the cent and the afs you will get into a minimum of low efficency and worst a surge condition. This occurs because you are relieving pressure while letting the flow go up. If you look at a compressor map for one of these compressors you can easily see why this happens. These compressors want the pressure to go up with the flow.

Richard,

Just for the heck of it I googled Latham yesterday, and read this thread straight through except for a couple hours of sleep. Impressed all over again. Good luck with this latest iteration. :)


DAMN AND I THOUGHT I WAS A VORACIOUS READER! WELCOME ABOARD:)

RG, That is a strange blower in your photo.


is that 8 stages on that particular blower?

Damn it, I didn't even notice that! Actually it is 7 stages and I'm really stumped now. I can't remember making that blower. To much alcohol I guess. :eek:

Let that be a warning to you Fred, brewing and distilling at home? Now that's a serious student of the art. ;)

How is this for a few axial flow compressors on a vehicle :)

http://www.bigpond.com/homepage_promos/images/BigSpin/sp_header_img.jpg

Cheers,
Hymee.

Damn it, I didn't even notice that! Actually it is 7 stages and I'm really stumped now. I can't remember making that blower. To much alcohol I guess. :eek:

Let that be a warning to you Fred, brewing and distilling at home? Now that's a serious student of the art. ;)


i counted 7 i can see but thought there might be one more at the near end that is just hidden because of the angle of the photo...

Now what keeps THAT from flying?? :confused:

But I hear you guys have a dry lake down under that can be used for this purpose.

Yes that's it, the guys who run there are known as drylakeracingbastards, right? ;)

Let's see if I can get all this answered. With the AFS if you remove the belt it will spin quite happily along as you drive. In fact it will take several seconds to stop after you shut it off. The axial DOES have internal compression. The thing is that when used as a draw through it uses almost no power when the throttle is not open. If the air is thin it doesn't compress anything so uses no power.

Recirculation is not all that good as you return heated air to the intake. Now I know someone is going to tell me that the air will expand in the intake and the heat will go away. Well this might sound good but you can't change conditions without paying for it, some energy is lost.


I don't intend to argue with the expert here... just thinking out loud and trying to learn.

It's very easy to visualize that internal compression takes place in a vane type blower... air at atmospheric pressure fills a chamber, the chamber is closed off from the inlet, the chamber gets smaller and smaller, actually compressing the air. It's harder to visualize in a screw type, but I assume that once a given lump of air gets in it gets sealed off from both the inlet and outlet, and the cavity it's trapped in gets smaller throughout rotation, actually compressing the trapped air before the the outlet is uncovered. You should be able to feel pulses if you turn either of these types by hand, because no matter how slow you turn it you are compressing pockets of air.

The axial on the other hand, does not trap air in cavities, it's only pushing it against the air ahead of it... if the air ahead (say, in the manifold) is at 8psi, doesn't the SC take less power than if the air ahead is at 12psi?

You said the rotor will spin as you drive with the belt off, i.e. the air is driving the rotor rather than the rotor driving the air. Obviously the belt is carrying no load; it's not there.

Take a unit that is pressurizing the RX8 manifold to 8psi at 8000 RPM... the drive belt is working hard. Pull it off of there and put it on a 502 Chevy... same pulleys and all... and run the Chevy up to 8000 RPM (hey, it has good parts in it, but we'll stand over here behind the blast wall just in case). The manifold pressure will not be 8psi, of course... let's say it happens to be ~zero, same as it would be at WOT if the SC wasn't even there. It seems to me there would be no load on the drive belt at this point, 'cause there is no higher pressure air ahead of the SC. Will the air be heated as it passes through the SC? Very little... it's only seeing a temporary constriction as it passes through the SC, no difference than air flowing through a carb venturi... it's not being compressed.

If you're still with me at this point... if lowering the manifold pressure by "absorbing" it with a bigger engine unloaded the belt, wouldn't lowering the manifold pressure by leaking air (back to the inlet) also unload the belt? :confused:

EDIT: I posted this before seeing your post 1259

uhh.. how is the project coming?

Larry, The axial flow compressor gets it's internal compression via aerodynamics.
Using the same theorys as flying a plane. Each "winglet" creates a high pressure area underneath it and a low pressure above it. In addition to this some energy is put into deflection of the charge. This deflection is redirected by the stationary blade converting that energy to pressure. Then this operation is repeated through the next stage. Since the following stage does not know it is starting with higher pressure it will increase the pressure by a like percentage.

The trick is to know the angles of the deviation in and out. Thus being able to design the following componant. This deviation does not stay constant through out the range. The axial speed vs the tip speed is critical in the pressure rise. It is the higher axial speed that is responsable for the high compression ratio of modern gas turbines.

However we have not the luxury of a fairly constant speed range. We as users of this instrument in lock step with the Otto cycle engine have a new problem, getting it to work throughout a wide RPM band. That has been my work for 20 years now. I'm currently still working on the aerodynamics for the Rx 8 blower. Not having the design and test equipment of GE or RR it takes longer by trial and error.

The positive displacment blowers have a luxtury of being adjustable by slowing or speeding them up. With the AFS it has to be sized for the aprox size of the host engine.

I have to go now, might get back and finish later but a dinner date is yelling at me.
So I'll leave you with this much babble.

With the Eaton (or any other positive displacement SC) stopping the rotor means stopping air flow completely. Mercedes must, therfore, bypass the blower completely with the induction system when the clutch is disengaged. Virtually all the other Eaton installations simply recirculate SC outlet air back to the SC inlet when boost is not called for... in some of them this passage is built right into the blower itself. When recirculating, the blower uses virtually no power. Not sure why Mercedes added the complexity.


When the clutch disengages the supercharger on the Mercedes systems, the blower does not stop turning. As with Richard's unit, the blower does free spin. I've seen it on my friend's supercharged Grand Am. Mercedes also uses a bypass valve. Eaton claims that it only takes about a third of a horsepower to turn their blower when the bypass is open. Even though it freespins, it doesn't quite freespin as fast as it would if the belt were still engaged. This is partially due to the bypass valve but mostly due to the small amount of leakage between blower rotors. Mercedes didn't need to add the complexity since they got very little out of it but they did.

FWIW: Mercedes announced a few months ago that they will be completely phasing out superchargers from their lineup over the next 2 years. The reasons for such were that turbos have gotten very cheap in comparison to superchargers and technology is allowing them to still get the emissions results they need.

STOP THE PRESSES! Are you saying the Mercedes blower is a positive displacement blower, AND they use a clutch on it so it can disengage? Do you know what this means? The last of the V8 interceptors could actually work :) People used to swear up and down that Mad Max's car wouldn't work because it showed what looked like a roots blower with a clutch. I believed 'em, but what do I know!

jds

When the clutch disengages the supercharger on the Mercedes systems, the blower does not stop turning. As with Richard's unit, the blower does free spin. I've seen it on my friend's supercharged Grand Am. Mercedes also uses a bypass valve. Eaton claims that it only takes about a third of a horsepower to turn their blower when the bypass is open. Even though it freespins, it doesn't quite freespin as fast as it would if the belt were still engaged. This is partially due to the bypass valve but mostly due to the small amount of leakage between blower rotors. Mercedes didn't need to add the complexity since they got very little out of it but they did.

FWIW: Mercedes announced a few months ago that they will be completely phasing out superchargers from their lineup over the next 2 years. The reasons for such were that turbos have gotten very cheap in comparison to superchargers and technology is allowing them to still get the emissions results they need.

Too bad Mad Max's car was a prop turned by an electric motor! (I know, we're supposed to pretend) There wasn't even a carb on top of that engine. It was just a scoop on a blower. I did always think it would be really cool though.

Here you go.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=7951674782&category=33741&sspagename=WDVW

The clutch in your Rx8 isn't strong enough to hold one of those drag race blowers. ;) much less one of those for an AC unit.

In Reply to RPs posts about "modern dynos", post #1162.

The "Dyno Jet" brand that I am familiar with are chassis dynomometers that are used for vehicles. They have a small "weather station" at the facility, and it monitors conditions as the dyno operates, providing real-time correction data.

As he suggested, results are either STD or SAE. I too only deal with SAE, HOWEVER a friend in the tuning business (who does Mazda stuff as well as his Ford specialty) informed me that there are literally DOZENS of "SAE" standards for dyno measurements. If you look carefully, there *should* be a "J-" number listed after the SAE (SAE J-xxxx for example), the ONLY way to compare results and have them mean anything is to use either the SAME DYNO, or the SAME "J" standard, and even then you get back to "different dyno, different day". But in short, that is how you get "inflated" performance numbers.

There is also the question of Wheel or Flywheel HP. Unless you KNOW the calculation for a specific vehicle (and they are ALL different, and no, 80% is not "close enough") to get from measured Whp to Fwhp, you really cannot know your flywheel Hp. For cars that I am familiar with (Fords) the correction is Measured Whp/0.8557 = Crank Hp (FlyWheel actually).

They dynojet uses a fixed mass drum, and the acceleration rate of the drum over time along with the RPM signal will give you HP. You really measure the Tq input as discussed, but with the RPM you can calculate HP at any point, or all points.

Damn, Jon's blown by me in both replies and views. Goodby cruel world. I'm moving to the S2k forum.

You can get ahead of him, just promise something rediculously high but give footnotes like drug companies.

THE AFSC Offers the following*:
300+ HP GAINED from the AFSC!
Women will drop down on their knees and praise you. Don't like women? NO PROBLEM! Men will also drop to their knees as well!
Will make you preform better on the track and in the sack!
Unit acutally makes money!
Now with a ultra low APR!









*Actual results may vary. None of this has been proven as scientific fact. Side effects may include heart burn, shortness of breath, hives, and or death.

Way cool, Photic. :cool:

But might I be sceptic, your name starts with "Ph" just like his??? ;)

I am very interested. How are you doing with it?

They dynojet uses a fixed mass drum, and the acceleration rate of the drum over time along with the RPM signal will give you HP. You really measure the Tq input as discussed, but with the RPM you can calculate HP at any point, or all points.
But doesn't that automatically mean that the faster one accelerates that drum, the bigger the torque measurement error unless someone knows the rotational masses of the engine, drivetrain and wheels?
Shouldn't an ideal dyno brake the engine according to the torque it generates, so it accelerates slower and rotational masses can be neglected?

Correct. That is the way engine dynos work and we call it "Brake HP".
The correct way is to hold it at a given RPM and read the torque.
Modern computer controlled dynos can give you step tests at 250 or 500 RPM points. They also can give you acceleration test with so many RPM per sec rise. I used to run my engine with the RPM rise at 200 or 300 per sec for the development work. Then run a 500 RPM step test for the records.
The step test will give you a little higher reading then the RPM tests. But since this is the standard you must fun the step test to compare your readings to others.

Now engine dynos can compare to each other with a reasonable amount of accuracy. The chassis dynos are not that close. The rising rate heavy drum readouts vary. There is no way to get a direct test of the numbers. On an engine yno you just hang a weight off of it at a given distance and read the gauge for torque. Say you hung 50 lbs of center 2 ft. you will get 100 lbs readout. you do this with several weights and check your curve. Then correct it if it is wrong.

Engine dynos will compare within 1% or better. I think chassis dynos cannot be used for comparison to each other. It now comes out that operators are using different correction factors. I have seen numbers for turboed Hondas that are not quite belevable. The numbers for Rx8 owners seem to be belivable.

Also there is no standard for figuring engine hp to wheel hp loss. You can't take a fraction and assume it to be accurate. This will vary even from car to car of the same type. There are just to many mech parts between them.
Remember if it makes heat it took power. So don't go telling me it's direct drive. If the parts got hot they took power. If they didn't you would have as RG says Cold Fussion or perpetual motion. Call the patent office not me.

How about some information related to the project? Hows that coming?

Dont make me sick Omi on you again :) jk

Damn, Jon's blown by me in both replies and views. Goodby cruel world. I'm moving to the S2k forum.
Get back here ...were not done with you yet:D

Man this thread has gotten huge.

RP, are you still looking for a test engine for your SC? Found one on eBay if you need it.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=7952516027&category=33615

But doesn't that automatically mean that the faster one accelerates that drum, the bigger the torque measurement error unless someone knows the rotational masses of the engine, drivetrain and wheels?
Shouldn't an ideal dyno brake the engine according to the torque it generates, so it accelerates slower and rotational masses can be neglected?

The larger error comes from the shorter time you can draw data from, not the driveline, as you are NOT attempting to get to Flywheel HP/Tq, but only to WHEEL Hp/Tq, which is very accurately calculated.

With this type of dyno, yes lighter driveline parts (tires, wheels, d/s, flywheels) DO absolutely change the measured wheel HP/Tq as compared to the exact same vehicle with heavier parts (higher inertias), but the measurement is still valid. The engine made no more Hp from one to the other, but the vehicle will definaely be quicker with the lighter parts, so you could say more of the engine's available power is making it to the ground, which is exactly what you are attempting to measure in the first place, WHEEL Hp/Tq.

The larger error comes from the shorter time you can draw data from, not the driveline, as you are NOT attempting to get to Flywheel HP/Tq, but only to WHEEL Hp/Tq, which is very accurately calculated.
Well but that means unless all drums of all dynos have the same inertia, there's no way that you can compare the data from different dynos. You can only compare data taken from the same dyno, but I guess that's what you and others said anyway.

Yep. The tools used to make a measurement have an effect on the thing being measured.
This is known as the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle."

Yep. The tools used to make a measurement have an effect on the thing being measured.
This is known as the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle."

That's why they have "Heisenberg Compensators" equipped to the Enterprise on Star Trek!

Yep, uncertainty would bug Spock no end, so they had to compensate for it.

Does anyone know what compression ratios (compressor and engine) and what compressor types NHRA top fuel cars run?
Also how does the flash point of nitro compare to pump gas (knock sensitivity)?

(Just for curiousity, I'd like to know what compression ratios of compressor and engine you'd run (what range) in order to generate maximum power output regardless of engine efficiency.)

As you would expect those things are kept secret by the teams. As near as I can get is only aprox. They run the piston very far down in the bore, that we can see when they rebuild between rounds. A good guess is around 6 to 1.
Thhey run a industry built extended version of the GM 6-71 or any 71 series engine for that matter. It just has a 19 inch rotor length. They call them 14-71 but there really never was such a thing.

These are roots blowers. They run up to 40psi which is a point where the efficency of the blower is about what the engine is. Somewhere around 38%.
This is obvious as if they turn them any faster they go slower. I cannot make the math come out as bad as it is.

They are getting over 500f increase out of the blowers. Yet they need over 1000 hp to turn them. This is a given as they have run them on the bench. I was witnes to the first bench testing of a drag race supercharger. Around 1971 my freind Larry Bowers who built drag race blowers built a test stand. He wanted to test his blowers against others.

This was still the era of the 6-71, Bowers built his own magnesium cases but used GM rotors. Running this test stand he put a Ford 302 engine. When the first test was run the engine just boged with any pressure was put on the thing. A 351 C was put on the stand. This engine could get up to 7 psi from the blower before giving in.

That is as far as that stand went. A boat racer built another stand a few years later and used a big block 427 Chevy. He tried to use an 8-71 as was then the style. It couldn't pull up to speed. So he put a full race 492 inch engine on it that made over 600 hp. They could not pull full speed and pressure.

Since then I have heard numbers like 800 to 1000 hp from well informed racers. One such is John Force who built a blower test unit but will not give out numbers. However his crew chief did hint to me that the 1000 number is not to far off.

These blowers are only efficent up to about 5 psi. But the NHRA will not allow any other blower to be used. They just don't want them to make any more power. I proposed my blower to them just on saftey reasons. You would not have al those blower explosions. If they wanted to limit power they could do what other sanctioning bodys do, restrict the intake size.

Those blower explosions are from flash point being reached in the manifold. They have readings of about 200f in them. Acording to that same sorce, but that is with 25% of the fuel being put in before the blower. This is what takes all the heat out of the air. But what happens when a spot of air slips by without getting some fuel, it explodes that's what.

They will not listen, they don't want to change anything orr put anyone out of buisness. They claim it is a valve hanging open. Now if those guys can't set up a set of heads after all these years I find it unrealistic. They have spring you could put on your RX8 for suspension springs. Heavy duty ones at that. Well maybe not but they have about 300 lbs or more on the seat. It takes a special spring compressor to put them on.

15 years ago they were running about 21-23 psi. They now are limited to 90% nitro, I think maybe they lowerd that to 85% recently but I'm not sure. That means the rest is alcohol. The flash point of these mixes is something I tried to find out but never got an answer. The only one who really might know all these answers is Prof Dean Hill. I tried to get to him at the university but he was on some sort of sabatical.

That's all I know.

Your second q does not state if you were talking race cars or street.

I may have posted this before or not, but this is the proposal I gave the NHRA

RP, you know the problem with the NHRA is the same problem that is in all other pro sports. Drag racing under the NHRA is not about car nuts having some friendly competition any more. It's all about MONEY. Just like NASCAR ought to remove the letter'S' from their name.

Wally Parks built a good organisation, but I don't think that he ever wanted to price out all the guys who build their own cars, drive them every day, and like to race them on weekends. Nowadays the NHRA rules are made to benefit the pro teams. Innovation is not encouraged. Between the NHRA and the state laws I'm surprised the term "Hot Rod" even still exists outside of museums. Current NHRA cars are not hot rods; they are purpose-built race cars.

I'd better get down off this soap box before I fall and hurt myself.

PS -- If anyone is interested, my 8 is for sale.

PS -- If anyone is interested, my 8 is for sale.



Why?

Does anyone know what compression ratios (compressor and engine) and what compressor types NHRA top fuel cars run?
Also how does the flash point of nitro compare to pump gas (knock sensitivity)?

(Just for curiousity, I'd like to know what compression ratios of compressor and engine you'd run (what range) in order to generate maximum power output regardless of engine efficiency.)

Firstly - what RAP says is all good stuff.

Secondly, the below "facts" don't directly answer your question, but give you some interesting stats...



How Fast is Fast - Top Fuel Dragster

First, some useful info:

Under full throttle, a Top Fuel dragster engine consumes 1 1/2 gallons (5.7 liters) of nitromethane per second.
A fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.



One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than the first 4 rows at the Daytona 500.


A stock Dodge 426 Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to drive the dragster's supercharger.


With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a near-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock at full throttle.


At the stoichiometric 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for nitromethane the flame front temperature measures 7050 degrees F (3900 degrees C).


Nitromethane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen, dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases.


Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. This is the output of an arc welder in each cylinder.


Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After 1/2 way, the engine is dieseling from compression plus the glow of exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F (760 degrees C). The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow.


If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with sufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half.


In order to exceed 300 mph in 4.5 seconds dragsters must accelerate at an average of over 4G's.
In order to reach 200 mph well before half-track, the launch acceleration approaches 8G's.


Dragsters reach over 300 miles per hour before you have completed reading this sentence.


Top Fuel Engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light!


Including the burnout the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load.


The red-line is actually quite high at 9500 rpm.


The Bottom Line; Assuming all the equipment is paid off, the crew worked for free, and for once NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run costs an estimated $1,000.00 per second.


The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.441 seconds for the quarter mile (402m) (10/05/03, Tony Schumacher).


The top speed record is 333.00 mph (533 km/h) as measured over the last 66' of the run (09/28/03 Doug Kalitta).

Putting all of this into perspective:

You are riding the average $250,000 Honda MotoGP bike.
Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged and ready to launch down a quarter mile strip as you pass.
You have the advantage of a flying start.
You run the RC211V hard up through the gears and blast across the starting line and past the dragster at an honest 200 mph (293 ft/sec) (322 km/h).
The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that moment.
The dragster launches and starts after you.
You keep your wrist cranked hard, but you hear an incredibly brutal whine that sears your eardrums and within 3 seconds the dragster catches and passes you.
He beats you to the finish line, a quarter mile away from where you just passed him.

Think about it, from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 mph (322 km/h) and not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the road when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot (402m) long race course.

That folks, is FAST!!!


Source: http://www.ftw.com.au/content/view/100/50/ but I have seen it quoted in various places in pretty much the same form.

It still stands the hairs up on the back of my neck when I read it :D

Cheers,
Hymee.

PS - I know of some rotors "unnoficially" running around 40PSI.

Thanks Richard, that was certainly interesting.
So if I understand this correctly if they could use a more efficient compressor they could produce more boost with the same 1000HP with that extra boost they could increase the total power output and when they can increase the total power output they can use more power to run an even more powerful blower and so on.

Regarding the 2nd q. The compression ratio of the top fuel class should be an indicator at what compression ratio an engine is run to maximize its power output. But the fact that they are forced to use roots blower means they don't actually have hit the limit of what would be possible with a supercharged (not turbo) piston engine. (I just remember that you mentioned that when you lower the compression ratio you can increase the BMEP).

Just a sidenote. I guess on a racing boat you could use a more effective air to water intercooler which means that a racing boat engine should theoretically be able to generate more power/displacement than an engine mounted on a car.

Hymee thanks for that extra information. Believe it or not, but I actually went to a drag race event not far from Perth (WA) 9 years ago. :D

If manifold explosions are so common, why didn't they place the roots blower in front of the engine and have a pipe between supercharger and manifold (as a weak link)? (I think you are (Richard) suggesting something like that in your word document with the axial flow compressor.)

Innovation is not encouraged. Between the NHRA and the state laws I'm surprised the term "Hot Rod" even still exists outside of museums. Current NHRA cars are not hot rods; they are purpose-built race cars.
Actually I think you could say this is true with the Formula 1 as well. For instance it would stimulate innovation if they would limit the amount of fuel they're allowed to use (in order to reduce the speed of the cars.) instead of limiting the size of the engines. Of course one could say it would make it too expensive, but I guess they could solve that if the organizers would share some of their profits with the teams.

If manifold explosions are so common, why didn't they place the roots blower in front of the engine and have a pipe between supercharger and manifold (as a weak link)? (I think you are (Richard) suggesting something like that in your word document with the axial flow compressor.)


Actually I think you could say this is true with the Formula 1 as well. For instance it would stimulate innovation if they would limit the amount of fuel they're allowed to use (in order to reduce the speed of the cars.) instead of limiting the size of the engines. Of course one could say it would make it too expensive, but I guess they could solve that if the organizers would share some of their profits with the teams.

Instead of a pipe, they have a think on the intake manifold called a burst plate. That is to limit the pressure inside that induction tract. Like a saftey valve.

We are pretty fortunate that a lot of the technology/R&D that has gone into F1 in years past has filtered down into the sorts of things we have standard on our cars today. I guess we can thank the fuel limits etc during the turbo era for that to a certain extent.

And that is one more time than I have been to the drags in Perth.

Cheers,
Hymee.

There was at one time i think in the early '60's or late '50's a front mounted blower. trouble was it couldn't use overdrive. Known as the Potvin it was used at Bonniville due to the lower profile.


What is the limit of supercharging? Was that a question?
Well the Novi ran 60psi. The race Merlins that Zeuschel built for Reno ran up to 50psi. So we havn't reached a limit of the actual supercharging it's just holding it all. How do you hold a head gasket inthere? Well the novi didn't have one, like the Offy it had the head cast with the "bank". You ground the valves through the bore. Then the "bank" slips into the crankcase.
This was done on some Merlin but not the last ones, there the sleeves were set to be about .004 above the face of the bank. This required very carefull build up.

Funny thing is I just read about a shop prepairing Honda race blocks who is doing this same thing. Ferrari had a unique way on the 512M LeMans cars. I saw Penske's engine being built and Traco couldn't get it to seal. Seems they laped the sleeves into the head. They had to get hold of Ferrari to tell them that, no one knew.

The heat is a thermal limit problem for internal parts. Hoowever we have new coatings that might help. Remember in a dragster the pistons are scrap by 4 seconds. This of course cannot be used in any other form of racing. I can picture it now pit crews scatered around the track at Indy say 10 times a lap they stop for pistons.

Your thought about boats is a good one. There is an unlimited heat sink right under the boat. Nice 60f water to run in any sort of heat transfer device you have.
But they still try to run the roots blower on offshore craft?????????/ Seems a strange thing, yet you have to realize that there is no other hardware on the market for them. Teams don't want to be the one to waste a season developing new things. Usually it means a season of learning the new parts and winning is rare. Unless it is so well developed out of the race arena by a development team who is a part of a running race team. Just sounds like a lot of money for racing that doesn't pay anything.

So what would I use if given the choice? A Lamborgini 500 inch 60 degree V-12 four cam, four valve race engine. these make over 900 hp unblown. They run two of them in a cat style 50 foot off shore boat in the Itailian series. Now they don't allow supercharging of over 350 in engines, So if Lambo could just build these off there 6 liter car engine platorm and I'd build some superchargers that put out whatever it took to get say 1100 hp. We could just take extra blowers with us some with more stages to put out boost in 5 psi steps. Untill we beat everyone. Enough cooling could be had tio get the air down close to the water temp. That might not be practical as there would be to much IC to go through and might hurt the response.

Anyway if you could hear two of those engines running 7000 RPM through tuned exhaust, now that is music. The 12's I'm talking about. It would be a sin of proportion to muffle those with a turbo. You might get a visit from the Pope.
Italians are very romantic when it comes to motorsports.

There is a reason why the boat engine can't make the power of say a sprint car or equivlant other engine say F1. There is no other place except aiir racing that the load is constant. You leave the throtles open for extended prriods of time. There are no corners that you need to slow down and shift. you don't get to lift because your drafting. You just have full power all the time. The engines just can't take it. I learned this lesson when I was building blown engines for the sport offshore guys.

I had a failure of one engine until I learned that they take off out of Palm Beach or such and lean the throtles open until they get to Bimini. I had to start building them with one point less compression and just not tell them about it.

Why?
Just not enough cargo space for guitars and accessories.
The car is great otherwise.

Thanks again for that extra information.
I guess I just wanted to know how you would supercharge an engine to maximize its power output without causing detonation, but then I realized you can't take top fuel cars as a benchmark, since detonation probably doesn't matter in their case anyway. And I believe you basically answered that question. At least with an axial flow supercharger there's not really an upper limit as long as you can cool the intake charge well enough it won't detonate, it will just generate tremendous pressures and temperatures and that's what sets the limit.

Also I agree that the valve failure doesn't make sense. The exhaust valve is exposed to much higher temperatures than the intake valve. So I guess if there was a valve failure at all it would be the exhaust valve not the intake valve anyway.

And I read your article about engine mass flow and I agree as well, volumetric efficiency is not precise.

Under full throttle, a Top Fuel dragster engine consumes 1 1/2 gallons (5.7 liters) of nitromethane per second.
A fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.
Actually I'm not sure whether you can say 25% less energy being produced. Maybe 25% less energy being consumed. I thought that most of the fuel is just used to cool the intake charge and the engine itself and ends up unburnt in the exhaust?

Talking about speed aircrafts I wonder why aircrafts with push and pull propellors are not more popular?
http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/profile/d335hist.htm

Well, Cesna makes one. Voyager the plane that went around the world non stop was that way. There are probably more. Just that new prop planes are not being designed for commercial use. There is also a home built plane designed by the same guy who did the round the world plane, Burt Ratan.
It uses a push prop.
Just doesn't seem as good a design, kinda like high wing low wing. The high wing lets the plane hang, making it more stable. But stble is less nimble or fighter like. :confused:
Same might go for pusher prop, but certainly Ratan knows more than I. The new spy drone used by the DOD is rear prop.

Having the noise behind the cabin is nice. Ah wasting time, need to go get shifters done. See ya.

I can't find that plane on cessna's website... by any chance you know what model it was or will be? I've been silently taking the flight stuff in... real interesting..

It's the Cessna skymaster. They don't build it anymore.
http://www.skymaster.org.uk/

I think Adam aircraft is one of the few that sells an aircraft with push pull propeller.
http://www.adamaircraft.com/Ownershipa500.asp
(I believe it was also designed by Burt Rutan).

I know they're around I just don't see why they're not more popular. Considering it's advantages in efficiency and turning (no angular momentum).

Since this thread is also about aircrafts. :)
The push pull propeller would probably be the design you'd choose to reach maximum speed.

Other very efficient aircrafts are canard aircrafts:
http://www.velocityaircraft.com/
Some people fit them with 20B rotary engines.
Canard designs have less drag because all wings lift the aircraft. On a standard designs the rear wing pushes down (more drag), but is more stable.

The very first aircraft (Wright brothers) was also a canard design.

Actually, more lift (+ve or -ve) = more drag. One of the first things we learn in flight school.

Cheers,
Hymee.

Ok, I should have said a canard design needs to generate less total lift in order to equalize the gravitational force because all wings lift the aircraft.
(The same is true for a flying wing aircraft which is even better than a canard design.)
Less lift = less drag

We need another topic for aerodynamics arguments ;)

Actually, the lift generating surfaces on any aircraft, only needs to generate the amount of lift necessary to overcome the mass of the aircraft. It doesn't matter if it is canard, conventional, flying wing - if it weights 1000kg, then it needs to make 1000kg lift.

With the conventional layout, and a properly designed and balanced aircraft, the rear horizontal stabliliser should run pretty much neutral at straight and level. When you want to pitch the nose up, get it to make some -ve lift (decrease AoA), and to pitch the nose down get it to make some +ve lift (increase AoA).

Cheers,
Hymee.

With the conventional layout, and a properly designed and balanced aircraft, the rear horizontal stabliliser should run pretty much neutral at straight and level.
As soon as it runs neutral then I agree. However I remember that on the Cessna 172 the center of gravity was supposed to be in front of the main wing (or its center of lift), but larger planes might be different. Anyway I think we both know what we mean. ;)

OK - I guess we should leave it at that then ;) It's all good :)

Cheers,
Hymee.

OK - I guess we should leave it at that then ;) It's all good :)

Cheers,
Hymee.
AGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!! Too much airplane talk and not enough AFSC talk!!

This question might have been answered before, but for what cars is an AFSC actually available?
Apparently the 1.8l Miata stock engine can handle relatively high boost, have you considered this application?
http://www.flyinmiata.com/news/ubercharger.php
I remember reading about a Honda engine running an AFSC. Could the same type be used on a Miata?

The Honda units were prototyped and three were built. Two were installed by others and out of our hands. Then We got involved with the rx8 and talked into switching over to here. (Ihave no complaints) So there is one unit left BUT you can't use it on a Miata because they turn opposite directions. The Honda turns backwards until last year when they changed.

Sorry no small car applications have been marketed as of yet. Remember this is a whole new envolope to be developed. The last one was much bigger and slower running, did not contain an internal overdrive. It is like starting over.

I guess you couldn't use the ASFC unit you're designing for the RX-8 and 'just' run it at a lower speed?
Or it looks like that the Miata stock engine can handle 12 psi boost with an intercooler, so maybe you could even use the same unit at the same speed just end up with more boost?

Problem here too. The rotary is not an efficent engine, you know that because of the gas mileage, right. It takes the same CFM in a rotary to make 300HP as in a piston engine to make 400 HP. So unless your looking at a 400hp miata it can't work. It can be slowed down somewhat but if you go to slow it gets into inefficent area or even surge. Remember your flying a wing, you need to get "lift". It has to go a certain speed to get the right amount of pressure for the airspeed.

This is the reason it is so hard to get the aerodynamics right. You don't want to try and make a DC-3 wing go 600 mph or try to get a C-130 off the ground with a F-15 wing. Get it? So on top of that you have the cascade effect of the stages. This is a very complex set of equations. And even then the design must be compromised to be machineable. Now you get a taste of what I do. It take a lot work to find the right combo. Since I do not have all the test equipment of a big engine manufacturer I have to do some trial and error. Believe it or not so do the big guys.

Like it says below in my sig, "air is funny stuff"

Would the 3.0l V6 Duratec be an option? (eg. Mazda 6, Tribute, a bunch of Ford's and a Jaguar).
What's the useful speed range in percentage of the maximum speed of an AFSC (approximately)?

It all depends on what RPM range you want it to work well, and the airflow characteristics of the engine in question.

Cheers,
Hymee.

Any new news/pics?

http://www.vs57.com/literature.htm

I see that richard paul claims to be the inventor of the latham supercharger..I found the size of unit (compared to wd-40 can) was quite small..I read rotory gods comment and began to investigate..Turns out the the inventor is J.W Oehrli who is noted as being the inventor in in the mid 1950's Financed by McCulloch.
ie..(McCulloch Chainsaws) Click the link to read more..

http://www.vs57.com/literature.htm

I see that richard paul claims to be the inventor of the latham supercharger..I found the size of unit (compared to wd-40 can) was quite small..I read rotory gods comment and began to investigate..Turns out the the inventor is J.W Oehrli who is noted as being the inventor in in the mid 1950's Financed by McCulloch.
ie..(McCulloch Chainsaws) Click the link to read more..

....please take your trolling somewhere else. I don't remember Richard claiming to invent the supercharger, and you're not going to take away Richard's support. He is one of the most respected guys on this site. See you around Sherlock Holmes :rolleyes:

http://www.vs57.com/literature.htm

I see that richard paul claims to be the inventor of the latham supercharger..I found the size of unit (compared to wd-40 can) was quite small..I read rotory gods comment and began to investigate..Turns out the the inventor is J.W Oehrli who is noted as being the inventor in in the mid 1950's Financed by McCulloch.
ie..(McCulloch Chainsaws) Click the link to read more..

Ummm - Excuse me, but Mr. Paul does not claim to be the inventor of this. He did purchase the Latham Supercharger Company, so he does own the name and any associated intellectual property.

Please re-read. You will find early on the he said he has found ways to make these more economically with modern production techniques.

Cheers,
Hymee.

Furthermore, you show your ignorance again by linking to something that is not infact an axial flow supercharger. The diagrams on the site you linked (McCulloch Supercharger) are of a inferior centrifugal design. Richards supercharger is no such beast.

Please review your comments.

Cheers,
Hymee.

Richard, You sure we can't just bolt this bad boy on?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4527207569

Now that is cool!

Hey RP. Is your company the Latham Manufacturing on Congress in West Palm. I have a friend, Dan Rogers, that worked there when they were making roler cams.

John

The axial flow supercharger was first built in 1955 By Norm Latham in West Palm Beach, Fla. Known as Latham Manufacturing Co. Norm made the Crane roller rocker arms all the way up to mid 1980's. I think when Harvey Crane left the firm.

Norm made the blower up till 1965. I bought the rights to the thing in 1982. I did not by the company. My company was named Latham Supercharger Company.
I redesigned the Latham to use proper aerodynamic shaped blading and built them from lost wax castings. The unit I built was completly different from Norms, nothing interchanged. They share a nominal outside dia. Not exact though.

The volutes were given aerodynamic shape also. Funny thing is that Norm was a Civil Engineer. He knew nothing about airflow or engines. However he was a very clever machinist. His Patents were only for the manufacturing method. Which was to insert a sheet metal blade into a groove then lock it with a tee shaped ring. Hard to explain but it required 364 sheet metal blades be inserted and then turned in the lathe. While clever it made a backwards looking wing. A very sharp leading edge and fat tail. No shape.

I have a bunch of those stages around here and it is amazing how accurite his work was on manual machines. Wish I had those guys working for me now.
A lot of those superchargers still work today and they show up on E bay all the time. Trouble is they flow enough air for '50's engines not todays. It was the best supercharger made in those years it just cost about 25% of what a car did.

In 1980/81 I was playing with Turbos like everyone else. In 1982 I was stacking them and finally one day I was at Larry Bowers shop who made drag race GMC style blowers. We were talking and I said all I have here is a big hair drier. I'm getting so much heat that it isnt working out to well. I felt I was beating my head against the wall. Then I had the thought "what ever happened to that Latham axial flow thing". Bowers had Hot Rod magazines in binder starting in 1947. So we grabed those down and found the ads. I called West Palm info and the girl asks if I want the buisness number or his home.

Norm says "well I'm 76 years old and was ahead of my time". He said people had been trying to buy it from him all the time but he was waiting for someone who knew what he was doing and had the wherewithall to see it through. I told him to sit right there. I was down there in 48 hours. But it didn't work out to be buildable after I spent to much money buying it from him. So after finding out it wouldn't flow enough for modern engines I redesigned it to be built with lost wax and to flow more air. I built those under the name Latham because that is all I really wound up with. I sold those from 1983 to 1990/ In 1990 I again redesigned it to be built from solid billet. That made it even more expensiive to build. I only made a few of those big billet units through 1992.

In 1998 I found the latest method using better CAD systems and better machine programs. Machine controls came a long way in the decade. In 1999 I came up with the newest method that made it practical to build them. That brings us to where we are today. Except that in 2000 we came up with the zero tip clearance stator. Thet little item has caused me some of my latest problems, but that is over with and it works just fine now.

That my freind is the history of the axial flow supercharger. I was there and knew all the personalitys involved. One more thing that should interest you is that I was involved with the Paxton Supercharger in the mid '60's. I ran the Factory number 4 Studebaker Hawk that set a bunch of records at Bonniville. See the current issue of Avanti magazine if you want more on how that came about. I think I have a few pages in there. And a little comment on Vince Granitelli and myself.

Soap box dismount, Richard

Just to show you that I own all things Latham I just looked up that item on E bay. It was sold to Glastron Boat Company on July 18 of 1963. It was made for a Ford 221 marine engine. So there.

Officially *Bitch Slapped*

I also have the s/n 0000001 Latham that was used by Racer Brown in tests that were discribed in the June 1956 Hot Rod magazine. If ayone wants it, I'd sell it. It does belong in the Peterson museum and they want me to donate it. I'm just not that generous.


Photic, it's bigger than your engine. It weighs 33 lbs.

I got 60 bucks on me.....

P.S. So how much money do you charge for tutoring, lol

So what applications apart from the RX-8 do you currently offer?

I'm a lousy teacher.
The only thing we are working on other then the 8 is the S2k. And it is running second place, so you'll know when its done. Yet it might gain favor as there are less problems with it. There are many fuel systems available and it is of know quantity as far as being quite strong up to 400 hp. It also has room.

John Corbit, weren't you supposed to look up Bobby Straman for me? Remember the Se5a biplanes that should be on the airport there.

I hope you don't mind if I ask so bluntly: But how do you actually pay for the food on the table - apart from the short throw shifter? :D
This is the reason it is so hard to get the aerodynamics right. You don't want to try and make a DC-3 wing go 600 mph or try to get a C-130 off the ground with a F-15 wing. Get it? So on top of that you have the cascade effect of the stages. This is a very complex set of equations
I actually didn't know that you can calculate this analytically. I think there are even CFD packages available specifically designed just to solve turbine related fluid dynamics (but they're also pretty expensive).

Actually you're supporting me, I'm on welfare. ;)
Yes there are programs, I even have one that I licenced from NASA.
Trouble is they don't design the thing for being built using my method of construction. No one makes them this way. If we used the construction of the turbine industry they would cost more than your car. A lot more.

I can't get into all the things without giving the family jewels away.
And the only jewels I have left I'm sitting on. Remember I have that young girlfreind who would leave me if I had any less. Jewels or money. ;)

RP I forgot. I am headed to the airport tomorow with Bobby's name on a "post it"
I will let you know.

John

OK this is some text found on page two of this thread posted by Richard. I apologize for the confusion Richard

******OK I didn't think anyone out there in RX land would remember the Latham supercharger. So I droped that name for this new unit. But for those who do remember I am the designer and builder of the Latham Supercharger.

My bad ..Oh and hymee didn't mean to hurt your feeling's..It'll be OK

Furthermore Richard I did find the updated imformation interesting and will admit I jumped the gun...

Itrx8, On behalf of myself and I include my freind Hymee also we accept. And welcome to the club and baptisim by fire.
Be aware, this group lets you get away with NOTHING. This is a rough house to play to. ;)

OK this is some text found on page two of this thread posted by Richard. I apologize for the confusion Richard

******OK I didn't think anyone out there in RX land would remember the Latham supercharger. So I droped that name for this new unit. But for those who do remember I am the designer and builder of the Latham Supercharger.

My bad ..Oh and hymee didn't mean to hurt your feeling's..It'll be OK

Furthermore Richard I did find the updated imformation interesting and will admit I jumped the gun...

ltrx8,

No worrries, mate. Its all good. Like Richard says - it can be a rough house to play! Have fun though :)

Cheers,
Hymee.

I forgot to add the little wink on the end of that last post about bolting it on. ;)
That Latham I found on eBay looked gigantic, I would have guessed a lot more than 33lbs :D
It's even more amazing that you still have the record of sale for that particular unit :)
By the way you're not so bad at teaching, because that was an good history lesson, it kept me captivated.

Richard's discussion of the evolution of the Latham unit and envisioning it feeding a rotary engine makes me think of how they tested the engines for the SR-71 (not to hijack this thread into the aviation realm :) ). In order to feed the Pratt & Whitney J-58 with enough air to run, they ran a J-75 in front of it and routed the hot exhaust directly into the inlet on the Blackbird's engine. For some reason, a turbine compressor feeding the rotary (the closest thing to a jet engine in a car) has that same visceral appeal. See http://aerostories.free.fr/technique/J58/J58_01/page11.html for interesting tidbits on the SR-71 engines.

I guess next I'll be imagining afterburners and mach diamonds in the exhaust stream.

Keep it coming Richard, you've got us all stoked.

that's some good reading.
i remember being in love witht he sr71 when i was a kid...it's cool to read about what powered it.

Cool site, I love that plane, I have it as backdrop on my screen.

For a real fun read get the paperback book "Skunk works" by Ben Rich. It has stories from the SR development and the F-117. Great insite into the Skunk works by the designer of the F-117.

That's a peice of engineering that no one can deny. Sick of hearing all those Mercedes and Porche Drivers giving me this German engineering BS.
That's Ok the 'merican's have a car for those German engineers to try if they want to see engineering. They can test drive it anytime they want, we left the keys in it.
It's on the moon. :cool:

That's Ok the 'merican's have a car for those German engineers to try if they want to see engineering. They can test drive it anytime they want, we left the keys in it. Don't you think that the battery is dead by now? And what put it there in the first place? And who lead the development of that rocket? http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/history/VonBraun/VonBraun.html
:D
Hey watch out, the Austrian's already rule over America's most powerful state. :D

Also the Russian's put the first vehicle on the moon:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/spacecraft/lunokhod.jpg
(....and someone actually bought it in an auction a few years ago.) :)

For a real fun read get the paperback book "Skunk works" by Ben Rich. It has stories from the SR development and the F-117. Great insite into the Skunk works by the designer of the F-117.


Isn't that the book where they describe the radar cross section test? I remember it going something like:

radar op, "Sir, could you check that your model hasn't fallen off the stand?"

designer, "nope, it's still there."

radar op plays with settings, "oh, there it is."

designer looks out the window and sees a large bird sitting on top of the model, doesn't have the heart to tell the kid what happened.

Ahh yes but Von braun himself gave credit to an american for showing him how to build rockets. I can't bring his name up at he moment but it's in my head somewhere. Anyway it was from his US patents that Von Braun learned to secrets that lead to his future work. I know you will look this up with your ability to work the net.

I don't know about those batterys because they are solar charged. Maybe they last forever in no atmosphere. So if the Germans want to try it we will get some new batterys if nessasary.

Don't rap Arnie or he'll kick you ass. Maybe he can beat some sense into the Demo's. Doesn't matter this state is going down anyway, look at our two bitch Sen's Boxer and Fienstien. What a pair to draw too. Look at the politics of the SF area. Look at our higher education, IE. Berkley, UCLA, Stanford. Etc. There is so much liberalisum in their professors that no hope is left. I'm just glad I'm old.

California is unmanagable with the illegal imigration in the south and the fringe north it has to fall. I am personally leaving here. Really, I can't see paying the taxes to run a buisness here. You can't get around by car, it's just a parking lot. As soon as we get this place up and running we're otta'here.
I'm putting the shop in Carson City and will live at Lake Tahoe. Gotta love Nevada.

Richard, I was just giving you a hard time.
Btw, that whole 'German engineered' thing is really an American notion. You won't find any people in Europe (apart from Germans themselves and they hardly bring this up) that will brag about German engineered things. :)

Richard, maybe we should start calling you Tyrone Slothrop ;). By your knowledge and experience I think you probably have gone through similar experiences being aroused by rockets :p. If you haven't read Gravity's Rainbow by now you should give it a shot, you would enjoy it.

No, I'm not aware of that book, but I just might look for it.

American who showed Von Braun rocketry = Goddard?

Zaku, Thank you. I had it on the tip of my tounge but couldn't bring it up

No reason I should scroll so far down to find this thread. Any interesting news Richard?

91 pages boo hoo :mad:
Jon just got to 100.

Guess I better get some news up. Today we cut some new blades with an evolved aerodynamic shape. Bench test next week, I hope if the shop function allows. :)

Richard, I have been following this thread since the beginning, and seem to have forgotten a few things.

Can you recap the benefits of your SC vs. what your know of the Greddy Kit? performance, low RPM benefits, install costs (seems the Greddy is pretty reasonably priced to install, but I imagine yours would be even lower cost to install, or even an easy DIY)

Guess I better get some news up. Today we cut some new blades with an evolved aerodynamic shape. Bench test next week, I hope if the shop function allows. :)

Pictures, Richard....people need pictures!! You know my email address.

I'm going to buy my first digital camera this weekend. Then I can post more often, as soon as I learn how to use it. :)

I should be able to control the pix then and be able to post them myself. Prior to now I just couldn't adjust the size to get them in. (I can hear the funnies coming on that line) :eek:

BTW I will answer the prior question in a little while. It's 6 in the morning and I'm not awake yet.

Why would his be LOWER cost? I would certainly expect it to be quite a bit higher than Greddy's turbo.
(At first I thought you ment only the cost to have it installed, but then you mentioned Greddy's price).

He is actually BUILDING these units, then will have to have them manufactured. This is a very unique product unlike anything on the market. I certainly wouldn't hold my breath on his kit costing under 3k.

There probably won't be many reliable FI kits cheaper than Greddy's for a very long time, if ever.



Richard, I have been following this thread since the beginning, and seem to have forgotten a few things.

Can you recap the benefits of your SC vs. what your know of the Greddy Kit? performance, low RPM benefits, install costs (seems the Greddy is pretty reasonably priced to install, but I imagine yours would be even lower cost to install, or even an easy DIY)

ill pay whatever it costs to have a beer can blower bolted to my engine :)

ill pay whatever it costs to have a beer can blower bolted to my engine :)

Geez - you guys sure must have BIG beer cans!

Cheers,
Hymee.

I actually did mean lower cost of installation, but I've been running a temperature for 5 days now (my GF and I have the flu), so who can tell what I really meant.

Ah, ya, it was hard to tell. Sorry about you not feeling well. I've been fighting the flu for almost 2 weeks now :(




I actually did mean lower cost of installation, but I've been running a temperature for 5 days now (my GF and I have the flu), so who can tell what I really meant.

Aussies are the ones with the big beer cans. Our size wouldn't even get your lips wet. I have no knowledge of the size of your Rum bottles. :rolleyes: :D

Maybe he ment recycled beer cans :confused:

Well I'm not so sure that the Greddy kit is easy to install. I'll go along that it is reasoably priced and complete.

I don't consider 16 hours in a shop with a lift all the tools a pro mechanic and able helper to be an easy install. Although it must have been well documented with proper photos and diagrams. It seems to be well layed out to use the space available and it doesn't move the batterry. Which in case you guys don't know was put there for a reason. It is there because of the large drain of the electric power steering. Try not to move it to far and use heavy wires.

I think I saw someone is trying to loose a few lbs and went for a lightweight battery which he then moved. Bad Idea. Less juice+more distance=less power, longer recovery time.

My supercharger will of course not require exhaust work for one thing. Thus there is no heat problems. I will be moving the throtlebody though. that is a pain but less then the exhaust. In fact with the drive by wire it solves the linkage problem.

My idea of a good street blower insalllation is one you forget is there. It may be fun with the blow off valve for awhile but it means that your always aware it is there and it becomes the main event when your in the car. That includes going out to dinner or a funeral. It becomes another animal entirely. This seemed OK when I was a kid and did nothing but work on my car. Now i want a little more quality and reliability. I want to be able to let my girlfreind run to the store in it. Or even to Vegas and not worry about it.

I'm not knocking that Greddy kit at all, I think it is a realistic installation for a realistic price. They didn't go overboard to try and get a higher bottom line. The kept it ssafe. They are having some teething problems with the electronics but what else is new. It appers they are working it out. I hope I don't have to through that but shit happens. At least they have someone at the other end of the line when you call. I've seen companys that can't be reached when these things happen. They just go into denial.

Keep it simple keep it safe. As I see it my blower isn't doing anything but spinning while you are not asking for power. So it is unobtrusive, open the TB and the air gets dense and the power goes up, instantly. You don't have to wait for things to get going the right speed it is already there. Mother nature takes care of everthing.

And for you guys that keep proding me I'll have you know that we will be buying a car for the installation in a few weeks. We hope our latest aero work works and we can put in. I'm glad that there are other kits working because when a few of you guys get the electronics worked out I can tap the collective brain trust.

Buying a test mule? Sweet :)

I'm waiting to see your results. I think this engine is better suited for SC in my opinion. I want to put headers on my car, and a TC won't allow for that mod.

Ahh you're gonna buy my car, awesome!!! Just playin.

Hey guys. Wow I just finished the last page of this thread and all I can say is you guys really know your stuff. Mr. Paul if your system is as good as what I think it's going to be, I'm sure I will have no problem spending my hard earned deployment money to buy your SC. Thanx for the great read. This is my favorite place to visit on my down time. You guys freakin' ROCK!!!

Blacklist, I gather you are deployed US military, and this was your first post. I want to thank you. If your out there fighting for the rest of us, you deserve a our thanks and a discount. :)

Naah...No need for a discount. I'm just doing my job, as I'm sure alot of other forum members have done or are still doing. Now the one's that have gone before me are the ones who should be thanked and congradulated. As well as the parents of these fine Marines that I have the pleasure of serving with. It's because of these people and the sacrifices that they have made that allow me to do what I do now. So I'd like to thank them. Now as for you Mr. Paul if you really want to thank me hurry and get this thing to market :p . I'm sure it's gonna be one hell of a beast once you are done and I wish you the best and Godspeed.

Semper Fi

Ok Richard, here's a question for your thread, since I asked my last question in the "wrong" (Pettit) thread I guess. :embarassed: ;)

Lets say we have a turbo kit putting out 240 WHP, and another SUPERcharger putting out 220 WHP. But the SC makes more power earlier and more consistantly. Which kit will give better performance from a 1/4 mile standpoint? My own tuppence says the faster car will be the one with the better driver. Not kidding. They are so nearly even that other variables will decide the race.

Now theoretically it depends on gearing and such if both drivers drive perfectly (for their own car). If the 240whp car can keep the revs close to the hp peak for the duration of the race then that car will win (assuming both cars are equal weight). However if the ratio spread prevents this from happening the broader hp curve of the 220 whp car will make up that 20 whp deficit easily (more hp "under the curve"). The 220 whp car will probably be easier to drive too.

But then, nobody asked me. :p

Where did you get that quote from Bob? I thought that was Hymee's turn. Or did the sneeky guy ask it of both of us? If so maybe I'd better wait until I can compare notes with Hymee. He and I are "mates" and we're not going to let you trick us into an argument.

That is because it's a trick question, there is no one answer that is correct. In theory you could build a car to meet those specs and another to the same numbers and the winner will reverse. You see you didn't give enough infomation on the exact power curves. Then there is the fact that to get the turbo to work in a drag rade is difficult. It requires special attention to detail in order to get it to be spooled at the begining of a shift. If it isn't quick enough and you don't shift fast enough you will fall off the power. You will have to shift without lifting on the throttle.

The tranmission Will have to be perfectly geared or the turbo will not be on pressure cycle. Or at least not in it's efficency band. Most street cars do not have close enough ratios to keep the engine in the band for the turbo. There are exceptions, like the 930, if you shift at redline each time it will fall back into a good torque band. I'm sure there are others but they are all special exotic types. No car originallly designed for the masses does this.

I think we are on the same page here Richard. You just said it differently than I did (probably better).

I got that quote from my e-mail notification of new posts. I have no idea why it hasn't showed up on the board. I'm not trying to stir up any disagreements between you and your mates (or any other kind of brouhaha, for that matter). I think you and Hymee both have your shite together, so there!

I'm really going to miss not putting one of your blowers on an 8. :(
BTW, my 8 is still for sale, complete with the RP Short Shifter PROTOTYPE!

Where did you get that quote from Bob? I thought that was Hymee's turn. Or did the sneeky guy ask it of both of us? If so maybe I'd better wait until I can compare notes with Hymee. He and I are "mates" and we're not going to let you trick us into an argument.Not intended to be a trick question at all. I originally posted this here by accident but meant to post it in Hymee's thread. By the time I'd moved it over there Bob had apparently already responded to it here. D'oh!

However, I do have a clarification and follow on question here (http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?p=757119&posted=1#post757119) that I just posted in Hymee's thread.

BTW, my 8 is still for sale, complete with the RP Short Shifter PROTOTYPE!

Why would you sell your RX-8? this has to be the best car I have ever owned! And one of the best I have driven for a daily driver. Maybe it is just personal preference I guess.

Sure it is not fast, but I have a fuelie El-Camino SS if I need to accelerate hard, and if it is top speed, there is the Ducati998 or the TZ250 F2 Race bike, but as a daily driver sports car this thing is beyond my expectations.

Omicron, I'm going to answer that on my own thread because I need the posts. That Jon joker has blown by me like I was in reverse. ;)

I have really answered it already if you read between the lines. This is what you must do because your question was so narrow. What you really wanted to ask, and what is important here is who will be faster for the avarage owner on the street.

If you look at how particular I was in pointing out how things had to be geared to take advantage of the extra turbo power you can see that it will never be right on in road usage. Say you have the ratios split perfect for drag racing. This means that to be on it you would have had to redline in the prior gear. So if you are not driving around somewhere near redline than you will not be in the power band for that important first instant. You will not have the time to get adjusted in a lot of conditions.

The one that will give the most satasfaction on the street is the lower powered supercharged car. That was the real question now wasn't it? ;)


What makes me feel that was a CRH type question?


BTW Omicron does the program have the extra space for when Jon's views goes past 100,000? Make it go back and start over when it gets there. ;)

Good answer RP, but more so I am wondering which will be faster on the street, not "more satisfying." :D Forget about gearing and keeping it in the powerband.. line up two side by side, 1 turbo 1 sc. Equal drivers. Which will win? Honestly not intended to be a vague or tricky question. ;)

I'll answer you when you fix Jons thread so he's behind me. ;) ;)

Good answer RP, but more so I am wondering which will be faster on the street, not "more satisfying." :D Forget about gearing and keeping it in the powerband.. line up two side by side, 1 turbo 1 sc. Equal drivers. Which will win? Honestly not intended to be a vague or tricky question. ;) What kind of race? If it's a race for top speed on a straight, level, long road, the TC will win because of the higher hp (unless it's gearing is really bad).

If it's a quarter-mile drag race, it depends on things like how the two cars are geared, even if they are geared the same. One set of gear ratios will favour the TC car and another set of ratios will favour the mechanically-driven SC car. Set the two cars up to favour the TC and the TC will win. Set the two cars up to favour the mechanically-driven SC and the mech.-driven SC will win.

If it's a road race, it gets even more complicated. My friend Dan used to beat Porsche 911's driving up and down the mountain (to and from Crestline, CA) regularly in his Chevy K5 Blazer because he knew the road. I know your question postulated equal drivers, but that's just ONE of many variables in a road race.

Saying "Forget about gearing and keeping it in the powerband.. " is kind of like saying "which is faster, the red car or the blue car --- forget about things like engines and transmissions."

Honestly, your simple question has no simple answer -- well, no simple, correct, answer. If there were a simple answer we wouldn't have races, because everyone would know which car would win every time -- boring. OK, so watching Stone, Woods, and Cook win all the time wasn't really boring, but I hope you get the idea.

"Stone, Woods and Cook" You are one old SOB.

So are you estimating 220rwhp out of the supercharger, or are these just arbitrary numbers.

Good answer RP, but more so I am wondering which will be faster on the street, not "more satisfying." :D Forget about gearing and keeping it in the powerband.. line up two side by side, 1 turbo 1 sc. Equal drivers. Which will win? Honestly not intended to be a vague or tricky question. ;)


Omicron , It seems knowone here here wants to answer your question honestly, for whatever reason, either they honestly don't know or don't want to tell you..

I'll tell you, I don't have any reasons not to tell you what my professional race car mechanics say.. I will try to explain it the the best way I can, from what they told me.

First everything being equal like you said, The Turbo would win
1. because the currently available SC does'nt flow enough cfm for the rpm range for the rx8 and even though the SC has more torque bottom end, when was the last time you raced someone and was shifting between 1500-4000rpm's...

2. They also told me that there is a formula to use for figuring out approx. power and times the car will turn..

3. I used to have a 99 corvette and a 69 Transam (rare) and I turned 11.20's and everything was set for shifting that car at 6300 rpm's in 1,2,3, gear and going through the traps at whatever was left usually 6400-6500rpm's..

4. So unless that SC is going to make power in the rpm range of the RX8 is not going to win in the quarter mile or street race... Sorry, unless Hymee or Richard Paul have a SC that will breath in that range , then we have Maybe a different store.. Don't shoot me I was just the messenger on this, But I do feel the same way..

Why would they not use a supercharger deisgned for the RX-8's powerband? That's like using a turbo that isn't designed for the RX-8's powerband.

The Guys I have talked to said the Sc they are currently using is not large enough for the air flow that is needed in the 7500-9000 rpm range for the RX8...

Oh my god, Fred the man of few words.
This was a hypothetical case, not specific. So just to make your drag race buddys happy tell them the SC car had a 14-71 on it. Yet it was set up for 220 hp. It has nothing to do with how big the supercharger. Also tell them that we had to put a big block Chevy in the trunk to turn the supercharger. Otherwise we would only get 6hp at the wheels.

Remember(Chime in here RG) pressure is the resistence to flow. Contrary to what some people here say you can take the biggest blower or turbo the world has ever seen and at X pessure the same CFM will be going in. That is what the engine will eat under that much pressure. Remember too that it was eating under pressure before you put the blower on it. It was just that that pressure was what mother nature gave us. It thinks you just drove below sea level. No one told it there was such a thing as supercharging. Since it has no eyes it doesn't know what you did to it.

What bigger capacity compressor can you have then the whole entire worlds worth of atmophere.

the pettit twin screw could be a little on the small side... but no one but RP would know if his is too small... since he's the only one making them he knows them better than we do... I'm willing to bet most mechanics haven't ever seen an axial flow sc

The answer to omicron's question is simple. The answer is "it depends."

What kind of race? If it's a race for top speed on a straight, level, long road, the TC will win because of the higher hp (unless it's gearing is really bad).

If it's a quarter-mile drag race, it depends on things like how the two cars are geared, even if they are geared the same. HUH?

Bob, I'm talking two identical RX-8s here. One guy buys a Greddy Turbo, the other a Pettit/Hymee/AxialFlow supercharger. All the gearing in the cars is identical because they were the same basic car prior to the installation of the kits. Even the drivers are clones.

Now, same question. Why is this so hard? :confused:

Right Ctupton, Lets for this study say we took the axial flow compressor off of a 747. Would that flow enough for a drag racer? Trouble is its efficency area is probably over 200 PSI With some ungodly 10's of thousands of CFM may be 100's I have never asked. If your really interested ask Turbine_pwr. He has the numbers in his head.

So what would happen if you ducted that air into your top fuel engine? Well if it couldn't take the air the pressure would have to rise until it did or until the compessor went into surge. Bet on the latter. So we go out and find aa small enough compressor that will flow only the amount of air that the engine cann eat at the pressure the C/section wants to give it. Plus or minus a small amount.

So what if we found a small compressor say off a buisness jet. First it would have to much pressure so we need a smaller engine to put it into. An engine that would need that pressure to ingest that mass. When we did find the combination we could beat the dragsters with about 120 cu inches. Of very stong engine.

whats it mean when i actually understand what richard just said?^^

HUH?

Bob, I'm talking two identical RX-8s here. One guy buys a Greddy Turbo, the other a Pettit/Hymee/AxialFlow supercharger. All the gearing in the cars is identical because they were the same basic car prior to the installation of the kits. Even the drivers are clones.

Now, same question. Why is this so hard? :confused:
I would say assume that the vehicle with the greatest area under the power curve would win. I can pretty much guarantee that that is NOT the pettit car.

Omicron, the answer to your question as closely as I can get it would be "it depends". If we had 2 RX-8's that weighed the exact same, were geared the exact same, had the exact same driver abilities, and the exact same powerband right up to the last horsepower, neither would be faster anywhere. However we all know that different compressors/blowers have different powerbands. I'm not even going to talk about boost pressure in psi. That is completely irrelevant. What matters most is how much power is being produced. The setup that will be fastest (this again is dependent on the scenario) is the one that makes the most power over the powerband operating area. If you have a turbo that makes the most average power within this area over any supercharger, it will be fastest. If you have a supercharger that makes the ost average power in this area over the turbo, it will be the fastest. No one here can say for sure that system "a" will be faster than system "b" just by purely looking at the spec sheet. We won't know until someone tries it. Since the Pettit supercharger is a different sized unit from Hymee's and their units are a different design altogether from Richard's, how can we directly compare them to anything else having this as our only available information? We can't. How can we compare the Greddy turbo to another turbo if we've never seen the other one on a car? We can't. Nobody here has yet seen the numbers or the powerband that 3 out of 4 of these systems will produce. There is not enough information available at this time to give you the answer that you seek. All any of us can do is to just speculate and that doesn't necessarily mean we'll be right or wrong.

Omicron, the answer to your question as closely as I can get it would be "it depends". If we had 2 RX-8's that weighed the exact same, were geared the exact same, had the exact same driver abilities, and the exact same powerband right up to the last horsepower, neither would be faster anywhere. However we all know that different compressors/blowers have different powerbands. I'm not even going to talk about boost pressure in psi. That is completely irrelevant. What matters most is how much power is being produced. The setup that will be fastest (this again is dependent on the scenario) is the one that makes the most power over the powerband operating area. If you have a turbo that makes the most average power within this area over any supercharger, it will be fastest. If you have a supercharger that makes the ost average power in this area over the turbo, it will be the fastest. No one here can say for sure that system "a" will be faster than system "b" just by purely looking at the spec sheet. We won't know until someone tries it. Since the Pettit supercharger is a different sized unit from Hymee's and their units are a different design altogether from Richard's, how can we directly compare them to anything else having this as our only available information? We can't. How can we compare the Greddy turbo to another turbo if we've never seen the other one on a car? We can't. Nobody here has yet seen the numbers or the powerband that 3 out of 4 of these systems will produce. There is not enough information available at this time to give you the answer that you seek. All any of us can do is to just speculate and that doesn't necessarily mean we'll be right or wrong.
But! But! BUT!! "It depends" is such a good answer! :b

Paul, this question has no answer unless you can provide the excact power curve and gearing for both set ups. But the hint may lay in the fact that there have been very few turbo drag cars. That run with winning streaks against supers in the same class.

They were absolutly hell to drive in F1 during the turbo era. We can't assume that the Rx8 driver is in that terratory. On road courses the driver has the option of changing the ratios to suit the corner. But he can't always be right on because there are other cars on the track. Makes passing harder to plan.

Just a note as to how hard they tried to keep the compressor wheel spinning. When lifting on the throtle an iris on the other side of the wheel closes a like amount. If they both close when going into a corner the comp is closed off from atmospheric pressure thereby allowing it to keep it's speed up.

Zoom, (notice I didn't say 44) it must mean I' learning the right way to say the same thing I said before. Oh yes, not to worry to much longer because Terri is turning 45 on the 18th. She just reminded me last night. Now what could that mean? :confused:
To me it means she is getting to old for me. :rolleyes: As you can tell she doesn't read the forum. :D


Edit) I just got it, the answer to my queston that is. Jewelry store, right. Naaa that's not it. Dumb answer.

Watch out with the "few turbo drag cars" comment. All of the forced inducted import drag cars are turbos. Of course none of those guys have ever played with any other setup so that may be the reason. The only supercharged import attempt at drag racing was with Adam Saruwatari's NSX when he first built it. He had picked up Jackson Racing as the biggest sponsor. They installed 2 Eaton roots style blowers on his 6 cylinder. They didn't stay there very long. That project was doomed from the start.

Omicron , It seems knowone here here wants to answer your question honestly, for whatever reason, either they honestly don't know or don't want to tell you..

I'll tell you, I don't have any reasons not to tell you what my professional race car mechanics say.. I will try to explain it the the best way I can, from what they told me.

First everything being equal like you said, The Turbo would win
1. because the currently available SC does'nt flow enough cfm for the rpm range for the rx8 and even though the SC has more torque bottom end, when was the last time you raced someone and was shifting between 1500-4000rpm's...

2. They also told me that there is a formula to use for figuring out approx. power and times the car will turn..

3. I used to have a 99 corvette and a 69 Transam (rare) and I turned 11.20's and everything was set for shifting that car at 6300 rpm's in 1,2,3, gear and going through the traps at whatever was left usually 6400-6500rpm's..

4. So unless that SC is going to make power in the rpm range of the RX8 is not going to win in the quarter mile or street race... Sorry, unless Hymee or Richard Paul have a SC that will breath in that range , then we have Maybe a different store.. Don't shoot me I was just the messenger on this, But I do feel the same way..


You guys like to talk allot, around and around we go the answer to Omicron is still the same... The TURBO WILL WIN....

Oh boy! This should be good!

If it floats, flys, or fxxks, it's cheaper to rent it. ;)

Both SC should be able to breath in that range. You are probably familiar with roots style blowers, which won't. Your friends are probably using roots blowers, which are cheap but the least efficient. What if both SC are producing more hp from 5000-8000 rpms and the turbo only peaks over them at the top? It really does just depend.

"Stone, Woods and Cook" You are one old SOB.
Well, I could have said "Weekly, Rivero, Fox, and Holding" but they didn't quite have the domination of their class the way SW&C did.
Yes, I am one OLD SOB.

HUH?

Bob, I'm talking two identical RX-8s here. One guy buys a Greddy Turbo, the other a Pettit/Hymee/AxialFlow supercharger. All the gearing in the cars is identical because they were the same basic car prior to the installation of the kits. Even the drivers are clones.

Now, same question. Why is this so hard? :confused:

You still haven't said what kind of race it is.
And it's hard because that's just the way it is.
Why is it that if you take two "identical" cars and race them (as they do on History Channel's "Full Throttle") one of them runs faster? Because this isn't simple.

Well, I could have said "Weekly, Rivero, Fox, and Holding" but they didn't quite have the domination of their class the way SW&C did.
Yes, I am one OLD SOB.


You, myself and Oldragger are the only one's here who know what you are talking about. :cool:

Forget it , I'am tired , big meeting in the morning and I need to prepare for, looks like I'am not going to get you guys to be realistic anyway... My point will be proving shortly anyway, good nite..

You guys like to talk allot, around and around we go the answer to Omicron is still the same... The TURBO WILL WIN....
Please back that up with the exact scenario, and setup used on each car. Also please give us the empirical data you used to determine this result based on your own personal firsthand testing of each and every system in question. Let us know what type of track, how many different types of track were tested as well as any streets this was tested on. Let us know what shiftpoint was used on each car. How much horsepower was each car producing at comparable rpm's? What octane was being used? Who tuned it? What altitude were the tests performed at? How much did each car weight? Did driver "a" take a crap before the race but driver "b" didn't? I'm getting silly now!

I didn't go around and around with my answer. I said "it depends". Which part of that 2 word sentence is unclear? You can not just state with any degree of certainty that the "turbo will win". What if it is running at 1 psi where the supercharger is running a 12 psi and both flow rates are optimized for the application? Will the turbo still win? Excuses aren't results. Each kit will do what it does and that will be that. It is up to the end user to determine which will be best for him. Until all of the systems are available, no one can make any predictions. Personally I think the Greddy kit is wimpy but that's just me.

If your statement was intended as a joke then great and I apologize for being a hardass. If you are being serious, you've got a LONG way to go to prove your statement. There are too many variables. If you didn't test it, you guessed.

DIDN'T YOU READ THE POST!!?


His "professional race car mechanics " told him so.. so it MUST be true.

Please back that up with the exact scenario, and setup used on each car. Also please give us the empirical data you used to determine this result based on your own personal firsthand testing of each and every system in question. Let us know what type of track, how many different types of track were tested as well as any streets this was tested on. Let us know what shiftpoint was used on each car. How much horsepower was each car producing at comparable rpm's? What octane was being used? Who tuned it? What altitude were the tests performed at? How much did each car weight? Did driver "a" take a crap before the race but driver "b" didn't? I'm getting silly now!

I didn't go around and around with my answer. I said "it depends". Which part of that 2 word sentence is unclear? You can not just state with any degree of certainty that the "turbo will win". What if it is running at 1 psi where the supercharger is running a 12 psi and both flow rates are optimized for the application? Will the turbo still win? Excuses aren't results. Each kit will do what it does and that will be that. It is up to the end user to determine which will be best for him. Until all of the systems are available, no one can make any predictions. Personally I think the Greddy kit is wimpy but that's just me.

If your statement was intended as a joke then great and I apologize for being a hardass. If you are being serious, you've got a LONG way to go to prove your statement. There are too many variables. If you didn't test it, you guessed.

lol

At least I can work on my own car! I am my own mechanic.

Forget it , I'am tired , big meeting in the morning and I need to prepare for, looks like I'am not going to get you guys to be realistic anyway... My point will be proving shortly anyway, good nite..
Maybe we're the realistic ones and you're the guy floating around on planet "turbo is always better".

Look buddy, it works like this:
Driver A and B are equal drivers.
Car 1 and 2 are equal cars except for the FI setups.
Car 1 uses turbo.
Car 2 uses super.
They are both tuned for optimal settings for the car.
They are also both tuned for optimal settings in their specific operating ranges.

Which car wins?

The car that has more area under the horsepower vs rpm curve (the integral of that curve from 0-top end if you will).

Which car will that be? IT DEPENDS!

You cannot say that turbo will always produce more power than a supercharger because it's just not true.

Thanks.. have a nice day.

You still haven't said what kind of race it is.
And it's hard because that's just the way it is.
Why is it that if you take two "identical" cars and race them (as they do on History Channel's "Full Throttle") one of them runs faster? Because this isn't simple.

its a thread race, and this one just got a shot of nos.

beers

lol

At least I can work on my own car! I am my own mechanic.
hey fred, wanna come work on my car? LOL.

If you want to drive it down here for a weekend, I'll get you a lift in the shop.

Hopefully this thread won't get closed after over 1400 posts just because of one closed minded persons attitude.

If you want to drive it down here for a weekend, I'll get you a lift in the shop.
We'd probably need more than a weekend to do what needs to be done.. how are those exhaust runners coming?

Ug. This was not intended to be a stupid question, nor get all the forum's "brainiacs" rallying together to effectively tell me how stupid the question is. Jeez, we normally agree with each other. :mad:

My POINT is that the Greddy turbo already on the market. There will soon be several others both turbo and supercharger on the market too. NO we don't have them to compare, this is all theoretical! The thing is a lot of people will wonder, since HP ratings will be all over the place, which kit is going to perform better, regardless of HP claims. I thought this would be an interesting topic.

BUT NEVER MIND. Jeesh. Think I'll go buy another RX-8 so I can just solve this damn problem myself.

Oh, and BTW, everyone back the hell off on Rotoman, he's trying to ask the same question as me.

<Omi goes away pissed>

Omicron is the man of the day. Keep going rotoman, You guys are helping catch up with Philodox. He has a hell of a lead, but if we all pull together we can retake the poll. :cool:

Should also add, the SC's are twin screw, or axial flow. Not Roots or centrifugal.

Maybe we're the realistic ones and you're the guy floating around on planet "turbo is always better".

Look buddy, it works like this:
Driver A and B are equal drivers.
Car 1 and 2 are equal cars except for the FI setups.
Car 1 uses turbo.
Car 2 uses super.
They are both tuned for optimal settings for the car.
They are also both tuned for optimal settings in their specific operating ranges.

Which car wins?

The car that has more area under the horsepower vs rpm curve (the integral of that curve from 0-top end if you will).

Which car will that be? IT DEPENDS!

You cannot say that turbo will always produce more power than a supercharger because it's just not true.

Thanks.. have a nice day.

Omi: we aren't trying to piss you off. I guess we failed in that department. :( We really just can't answer that question accurately.

My personal take on the Greddy kit is that it is a small performance upgrade but far from optimal. The turbo is too small. This most likely translates into great low end power but will fall off at higher rpms. Greddy even admits that power falls off at higher rpm's. This is where the Renesis really starts to shine. I see the Greddy kit being a nice upgrade for the person who feels this car has no low end power but I don't see it as the right kit for someone who really wants a much faster car.

The Pettit kit I also see as being designed with the same purpose. They are using a small twin screw supercharger. This will do fine at the low boost levels they want and will have great all around power compared to stock. This is another system that I would consider good for those who complain the Renesis lacks low end power but isn't concerned with how ultimately fast their car is.

Hymee seems to want a nice drivable system that provides a nice overall increase in drivability but also the potential to make some great power in the future if everything is is done properly. From a race standpoint vs the other 2 systems, I'd give it to Hymee.

Richard is designing a system that is a nice boost in power reflective of the engine's current power curve. It should really just feel like a larger Renesis everywhere. The extreme low end power may be lower than some of the other systems but the mid to top end should be quite nice. Power increase should feel very linear as rpm's rise vs a turbo which will start to surge you roward once it spools up or vs a supercharger which will feel like you installed a V8 under the hood when off idle. This supercharger I don't predict to be the slowest of the group nor do I consider it to be the fastest. It will probably settle in somewhere in the middle. How much could be ultimately had out of it will really be dependent on how much extra airflow capability Richard has efficiently left room for above it's intended use.

The SSR turbo kit is a kit that is designed totally differently from the Greddy kit. It should have great mid to high rpm power and be easily upgradable in the future.

Ultimately out of the currently available systems and their intended design uses, I would actually give the win in terms of total potential to the SSR kit only because it would be the easiest to upgrade in the future. It uses a generic T-04 based turbo that can easily be upgraded. If all of the systems hitting the market are hitting similar goals, they should be really close in the performance department. Which ones will have the greatest future potential for upgrade is the real question.

Rotoman is not trying to get the same question answered. He is of the opinion that a turob will always win based on what a mechanic said. Based on my above very limited analysis he'll probably be very happy.

Personally I already own a turbo but am awaiting for the axial flow unit so I can convert.

I have the same question. I wouldn't be disheartened by thier answers though. I think the fact that they say "It depends" is a very good sign.

Yes, rotoman gave a definite answer, which would be nice to hear. Except that it came off very biased and uninformed. I've been reading other forums for other cars where FI is discussed, and you see countless threads of people saying turbo is always better. Usually these answers are typed by what looks like a 3 year old, and thier "facts" are just plain wrong. I apologize to rotorman for jumping to conclusions. However, you (and I) were looking for a factual discussion, not "so and so said.."

The "it depends" answer is a good sign because it IS possible (theoretically) that one of the SC setups is as quick as the turbo.

Now, back to checking my kitty for male bits.


Ug. This was not intended to be a stupid question, nor get all the forum's "brainiacs" rallying together to effectively tell me how stupid the question is. Jeez, we normally agree with each other. :mad:

My POINT is that the Greddy turbo already on the market. There will soon be several others both turbo and supercharger on the market too. NO we don't have them to compare, this is all theoretical! The thing is a lot of people will wonder, since HP ratings will be all over the place, which kit is going to perform better, regardless of HP claims. I thought this would be an interesting topic.

BUT NEVER MIND. Jeesh. Think I'll go buy another RX-8 so I can just solve this damn problem myself.

Oh, and BTW, everyone back the hell off on Rotoman, he's trying to ask the same question as me.

<Omi goes away pissed>

I don't post in this thread often, but was there a reason Mazda North American "supercharged" their project car?? Just curious.

Hope you don't mind me asking this here Richard, but it increases the post count.. and RG mentioned it above..

I keep seeing reference to Pettit using a smaller autorotor SC than Hyme. I didn't read any specs anywhere on what one they are using, so I assume some of you guys saw it at 7 stock? Well, weren't they going to do a low and high(er) boost version? Could they not be using the same autorotor SC for that version? I've tried e-mailing them months ago with no reply =)

Just curious.

To stay on topic, any updates, Richard? :)

Yep saw it firsthand at Sevenstock. The preliminary info they had on low boost and high boost really wasn't that different. It would more accurately be termed as low boost and less boost. 3-4 psi vs 6-7 psi. They could use the same supercharger for both.

I don't post in this thread often, but was there a reason Mazda North American "supercharged" their project car?? Just curious.
I'm sure there was and I bet it was two fold.
First I'd say that the exhaust flow on the renesis is not nearly that of the 13B-REW because of the side ports. The exhaust gasses coming out of the car are just not coming as fast and as we saw at 7stock, there's major room for improvement in the flow out of those ports. As we've seen, the exhaust gasses coming out of those side ports are still pretty fast.

Second, I'd say they did it because of the reputation that the 3rd gen had with problematic turbos. No, I'm not saying that all turbos in all 3rd gens had problems or that the turbos were the main problem of the 3rd gen (cooling was the problem) but people tend to play that off as what made the 3rd gen an unreliable car. Maybe mazda was trying to avoid producing a turbo rotary because they thought it wouldnt sell (in the US) because of that reputation.

Or maybe it was just because a supercharged vehicle was just less complicated and less expensive to build than a turbocharged vehicle.

They could've had any number of reasons but those are my guesses.

Ahh thanks! Well they could go the Starbucks route and have large and Venti .. High power and super power! I asked the diff before via email and hadn't got a reply. I suppose one is intercooled and one isn't :/

Yep saw it firsthand at Sevenstock. The preliminary info they had on low boost and high boost really wasn't that different. It would more accurately be termed as low boost and less boost. 3-4 psi vs 6-7 psi. They could use the same supercharger for both.

Well on Mustangs here is what I've learned.. Turbo's are usually the fastest but they also grenade the engine the fastest... the twin screw's were almost as fast but are way more reliable... the centrifugal are sometimes reliable, and the roots are probably the most reliable, but as we all know is just getting to be too old of technology to have much improvement. now RP's intrigues me, because up until this site I'd never heard of his, but everything I'm hearing (reading) has me drooling... I personally predict (and well this is based off of comparing rx-8's to mustangs...I know not good) that both RP and Hymee's would be better than the greddy turbo as far as performance goes... if nothing else the cooler intake charge of both sc's would be a big factor.

So, with Richard's supercharger, I could do a mild street port, clean up the runners, install a header, and then supercharge this engine - That is my goal. RP does your supercharger retain the stock OEM intake box? Or have you not layed out the plumbing yet?

Just as a re-cap. Omicron's question was not which form of FI would produce the most increase in HP/power. But if Axial flow, or twin screw supercharging that dyno'd a lower total HP gain could actually be faster than a turbo that is rated slightly (10 - 15hp) because of the way power is applied over the entire RPM range.

Ok guys, I feel better now. Thanks. I was hungry, tired and grumpy. Now I'm just tired. :D

Just as a re-cap. Omicron's question was not which form of FI would produce the most increase in HP/power. But if Axial flow, or twin screw supercharging that dyno'd a lower total HP gain could actually be faster than a turbo that is rated slightly (10 - 15hp) because of the way power is applied over the entire RPM range.
The answer to that question is yes.

(the integral of that curve from 0-top end if you will).

Not entirely. Don't forget that you want to integrate only the operating range :p

Not entirely. Don't forget that you want to integrate only the operating range :p
blah.. give me a break here :b

blah.. give me a break here :b
.... ;) don't get me started with Fourier to analyze harmonics.....jeez! highschool...j/k

BTW, RP, how are we doing on the post count? We still have 6 pages to surpass Jon's thread. :cool:

.... ;) don't get me started with Fourier to analyze harmonics.....jeez! highschool...j/k

BTW, RP, how are we doing on the post count? We still have 6 pages to surpass Jon's thread. :cool:
ok then.. how bout we discuss the resonance frequencies of RLC circuit designs and class c amplifier design?

would that be more fun for you? :b

ok then.. how bout we discuss the resonance frequencies of RLC circuit designs and class c amplifier design?

would that be more fun for you? :b
Ah....good ol' electronics. But RLC doesn't sound all that familiar (running a search on Google gave me Radio Link Control: what kind of?) Anything too high-tech is over my head ( ;) highschool was a long time ago). Why don't we talk about discrete filters (LP, HP, MP, BP...) or even better, how to relate signal analysis to exhaust harmonic tuning? (that'd be more inline with the subject)

Am I becoming a postwh#$#?

Ah....good ol' electronics. But RLC doesn't sound all that familiar (running a search on Google gave me Radio Link Control: what kind of?) Anything too high-tech is over my head ( ;) highschool was a long time ago). Why don't we talk about discrete filters (LP, HP, MP, BP...) or even better, how to relate signal analysis to exhaust harmonic tuning? (that'd be more inline with the subject)

Am I becoming a postwh#$#?
RLC = resistor inductor capacitor (band pass/ band reject filters)
lol..

like this: voltage source in series r in series with l in parrallel with c (r - (L || c))

so your s domain function where s = jw is something like this (R/((1/sL) + sc))/(R+((1/sL) + sc))

Now solve for your poles and zeroes, make your bode plot and calculate the resonance frequency of the circuit :b

Hey, hey, it's engines, I don't care if you put them in cars, planes or boats. But it's always about the engines. We don't do amplifiers and diodes or capasitors.
We don't do flowers or clothes. This ain't no girlie man thread.

As to the intake I don't know what you refer to. The manifold or the aircleaner?
At the moment I think we need some of the real estate that the air box now has.
Again we haven't even desided if the air will go in the back or front of the SC. It will depend on how it packages. We have the option of changing this althogh it takes a full redesign of the parts.

Since we are not in production yet it may change. All the prototypes have been axial rear inlet. This is the way I like it but most of the blowers I built in the past have been the other way 'round.

Rotarygod is worried thar I wouldn't leave him any headroom in the design. Now would I do that to you? I can't be sure of covering the range if there isn't something left. I am not going to max out every little bit that is in there right away. No matter what I do someone is going to force the thing to go faster. Now I can tell you where the theoretical point of going Mach is. I can design it so it runs well below it, yet there is going to be that one guy and you know who you are. That is going ballistic with it. I have no idea what will happen if you do.
I know it will not flow as much air and keep pushing less as more surfaces go sonic. It might get "blade stalls" little storms that stay in the blades and stop flow.

You might get one big bang when the air just stops. The damage may be limited to the blower but I doubt it. Supersonic waves are very strong, witness sonic booms. You don't have to actually go sonic to get some points on the blade to be supersonic. This is because air is going different speeds at different points on a wing. Remember how some WWll fighter pilots were having trouble controling thier planes when they got into high speed dives. Say a P-51 pilot go into a war emegency situation and his only way out is a dive at full power. He is climing on 500MPH plus. The wave pressure is already starting to move back on his control surfaces. When they get to thhe control surfavce he can't move them with his manual controls. Remember there was no power assist.

So are there little pockets around radius or such that go sonic before you are actuall sonic, yes there are. So use care, when you get ther you will have gone to far. Also the speed of sound is based on temp. It is slower when cooler. A car on the ground has to go faster then a plane at 30,000 ft to break the sound barrier.

Ok gotta go check my E mails now. You guys keep up the good fight. :)

you cant really call electronics girlie man stuff.. 90ma will kill the average human being.. that's nothing.. and w/o electronics your modern engine would be worthless..

anyway :b

back on topic.

you cant really call electronics girlie man stuff.. 90ma will kill the average human being.. that's nothing.. and w/o electronics your modern engine would be worthless..

anyway :b

back on topic.
hheeheh,....we had the same argument back at school. See, I graduated as an electronics tech back in '98. Half of my friends are aeronautical techs. They wore blue mechanic overalls, we wore white (doctor!) jackets. We use to call them "grease monkeys", they'd call us "ice cream techs."

And about electronics...like RP said before...give him a Weber...

BTW, little game for you Jon: http://www.oz.net/~coilgun/mark2/rlcsim.htm

I wasn't refering to the electronics as girlie man stuff it was the flowers and clothes shopping. Without the modern electronics the engines wouldn't be making the power they are or as reliable. Yet they should have a limit. Who was it? RG who posted something about obdlll will allow "them" to shut your car off as you drive by if they don't like some of the reading your ecu is getting. They say the idea is stopping the bad guys that are running. Well I don't care it's their ocupational hazard if there are 25 high speed chases a year so what.

For that the rest of us are going to risk the freedom of driving how we want where we want. What happens when the bad guys hack into that system? Can they shut off the cop cars? Or how about if they just shut you down cause they liked your car or worse your wife.

Now that's when the resurgents of carbs will come. Right allong with distributors. And how many guys are there going to be around who can work on those things. My life will have value. Fred you and I can go into a very good buisness of conversions away from electronics. I'm not even adverse to building cars for the bad guys. Kinda like in the bootlegging days. I'm for sportsmanship.

Last year I stoped along the I-5 for lunch on the way to Tahoe. What was there but three CHP cars their drivers having lunch. When I got out I was walking my dog and the chp's were BS'n around the cars. which consisted of a regular Ford black and white. Then an all white Ford. Then, what the hell a Z-28 Camaro?? With the smallest light rack you have ever seen. If those lights were 2 inches I'd be supprised. So being the smart ass that I am I went over (Ihad my dog ) and asked them "What ever happened to sportsmanship?" knowing exactly what i ment the one guy say's "well it sure is fun".

"Ya for you guys" I still think it's cheating. Then he tells me their cars have a better engine package then the regular cars do. What's with that?
The General is building cars for that side, I'm up for building cars for the other team.

"I'm up for building cars for the other team."

God Bless You Richard

As long as you aren't building axial superchargers for cop cars, I'll remain happy.

First it's John Kenneth Galbraith's warnings of the Military Industrial Complex and now Rotarygod's warnings of a forth-coming Autosports/Law Enforcement Industrial Complex. Supplying both sides of a war is the quickest way to make a buck! Caller I.D. and caller I.D. blockers. From the same company. Hmmm.....

Rich, in my contemplation about acquiring my own turbo kit I began to wonder if my desires to do something off the beaten path should prevail and maybe I should combine my idea for the hydro-drive with your axial flow and solve each others' problems. Care to knock the industry dead at the next SEMA with a new FI for the RX-8? I am available to talk about it.

CRH

You, myself and Oldragger are the only one's here who know what you are talking about. :cool: That's entirely cool with me.
THAT was drag racing! Weekly, Rivero,Fox,Holding,Crosby,Stills,Nash,Young,Sacco and Vanzetti were local heroes around here.
Hehe, back then they dumped raw fuel into the blower inlet and called it "fuel injection."

Anyone want to set up a Spalding Flamethrower?

its a thread race, and this one just got a shot of nos.

beers
Well, we could always pull out our infallible secret thread-lengthening weapon --- start discussing aircraft again!

STop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :) //

If a sonic boom happens can we travel back to 1954?

Hey, hey, it's engines, I don't care if you put them in cars, planes or boats. But it's always about the engines. We don't do amplifiers and diodes or capasitors.
We don't do flowers or clothes. This ain't no girlie man thread.

As to the intake I don't know what you refer to. The manifold or the aircleaner?
At the moment I think we need some of the real estate that the air box now has.
Again we haven't even desided if the air will go in the back or front of the SC. It will depend on how it packages. We have the option of changing this althogh it takes a full redesign of the parts.

Since we are not in production yet it may change. All the prototypes have been axial rear inlet. This is the way I like it but most of the blowers I built in the past have been the other way 'round.

Rotarygod is worried thar I wouldn't leave him any headroom in the design. Now would I do that to you? I can't be sure of covering the range if there isn't something left. I am not going to max out every little bit that is in there right away. No matter what I do someone is going to force the thing to go faster. Now I can tell you where the theoretical point of going Mach is. I can design it so it runs well below it, yet there is going to be that one guy and you know who you are. That is going ballistic with it. I have no idea what will happen if you do.
I know it will not flow as much air and keep pushing less as more surfaces go sonic. It might get "blade stalls" little storms that stay in the blades and stop flow.

You might get one big bang when the air just stops. The damage may be limited to the blower but I doubt it. Supersonic waves are very strong, witness sonic booms. You don't have to actually go sonic to get some points on the blade to be supersonic. This is because air is going different speeds at different points on a wing. Remember how some WWll fighter pilots were having trouble controling thier planes when they got into high speed dives. Say a P-51 pilot go into a war emegency situation and his only way out is a dive at full power. He is climing on 500MPH plus. The wave pressure is already starting to move back on his control surfaces. When they get to thhe control surfavce he can't move them with his manual controls. Remember there was no power assist.

So are there little pockets around radius or such that go sonic before you are actuall sonic, yes there are. So use care, when you get ther you will have gone to far. Also the speed of sound is based on temp. It is slower when cooler. A car on the ground has to go faster then a plane at 30,000 ft to break the sound barrier.

Ok gotta go check my E mails now. You guys keep up the good fight. :)

Actually you already get supersonic air speeds when you slice a tire. So I guess that could be called a sonic boom as well.

Now you see I don't think that is correct. Air can't go supersonic through air now can it? That is exactly what the sound barrier is. I think I took a shot at this on this thread awhile back.

OK I'm still thinking if this could happen. Give me some time I'll get back to you.
It is possable if the partical wave not the sound wave were to go through. But I don't know if this happens in real life. I'll ask someone at lunch.

Zoom, (notice I didn't say 44) it must mean I' learning the right way to say the same thing I said before.


or you 'vw finally said it enough times that its actually sinking in. happy birthday to Terri( interesting my sister spells her name the same way) and get thee to the jewlery store!

What about travelling to 1954 in our 8's. Can your Axial flow SC do that with that stalling air vortex dealy?

Now you see I don't think that is correct. Air can't go supersonic through air now can it? That is exactly what the sound barrier is. I think I took a shot at this on this thread awhile back.
If you just use the bernoulli, you reach almost supersonic speed (292m/s) at 1 atm. Now since air is a compressible fluid you should reach even more (the fact that it expands while it escapes the tire should accelerate it). Of course since there will be turbulance and the air has also some viscosity, the speed will be reduced again. So it also depends on the nozzle or rather how you slice it.

But let's assume you shoot on a truck tire with 8 atm, the air escaping the tire should definitely reach supersonic speed for a very short time.

What about travelling to 1954 in our 8's. Can your Axial flow SC do that with that stalling air vortex dealy?

Do you mean November 5, 1955?
but can it produce the 1.21 gigawatts needed?

*** NEWS FLASH ***
Axial Flow Supercharged Engine Sets World Record

Today, an axial flow supercharged engine (in this case more commonly known as a jet engine), powered the Virgin Atlantic Global Flyer on a historic first ever non-stop, non-refueled solo flight around the complete whole entire world. Piloted by 60 year old Steve Fossett, also first to fly non-stop around the world in a balloon, the trip was accomplished in 67 hours. Takeoff weight was 22,000 lbs... landing weight about 4,000 lbs... the takeoff weight was 82% fuel! The flight was in danger of failure due to 2,600 lbs of fuel "disappearing" due to a leak early in the flight.

The GlobalFlyer was designed by Burt Rutan and built by Mr. Rutan's company, Scaled Composites, of Mojave, Calif. Scaled also built SpaceShip One, which took home the $10 million X Prize in October for the first private flight into space. He also built the Voyager, which Mr. Rutan's brother Dick flew, with another pilot, Jeana Yeager, around the world nonstop without refueling in 1986. That plane had a piston-driven engine, and the flight took nine days.

[SIZE=4] Jeana Yeager
Related to Chucky?

Globi, you are right and you explain it well. The excaping air is going to produce a "bump" of speed where it will reach max at the exit restriction. Due to the high delta the actual matter that comprise the molicules are forced to the low pressure area and can go sonic at the Bernoulli as you call it, where speed is highest. For those not remembering Bernoulli is the guy who gave us the venturi.
It is in essense a partical wave not the sound wave.

Now as to going back to 1954 or there abouts. I'm sorry, the only way this is done is by willingness to drive one of the biggest pieces of crap ever made. A Delorien, stainless steel body on a fiberglass frame! Kinda like a Vega, aluminum block with free standing aluminum bores and a cast iron head. Can anybody spell backwards. :confused:

Therefore as Rx8 drivers you must be content to stay here and now.

****being draged kicking and screaming with finger nails dug into the carpet***he screams "I'm not going to the jewlery store" "not,not,not!!!

Related to Chucky?
No, she's not.
But not an uncommon question... one she got very tired of answering, as I recall (can't believe that was almost 20 years ago :eek: ).

There ain't no way that was 20 years ago!!!! Was it??

Top fuel dragsters are obviously very loud. Now the gases escaping the exhaust pipes probably reach super sonic speeds, since the pressure is still very high when the exhaust valves open (pressure transforms into speed).
If it's not the speed of the exhaust particles that make that extremely loud sound, what else would it be? If the top fuel dragsters had mufflers they wouldn't emit that sound or would they?

Globi, don't you think I have enough shit to ponder. :confused:
Somewhere deep in my head things come rising up all by themselves, There is a never ending stream of questions/problems/delema/debates/etc. :eek:

If you come up with something and I choose not to bother with answering it, yet somewhere, somehow I'll be in the shower months from now and it will surface.
It will never go away until I figure it out. So that is where this is going, filed.
Some day I will notify you that the answer came up.

Yet my internal hard drive is getting overloaded with trivia, I know it can't get full but it still slows down the everyday computations. A young mans mind is less cloged and it is easier to sit around the dorm on friday night with beer and pizza pondering all sorts of useless events. (I never lived in a dorm)

My father, who was not an educated man used to say; "My son is a wealth of useless information."
I still get into these stupid mental excersises with my partner Dana. He is a mech eng from of all places Berkley. The only conservitive ever to get his BSME from there. :rolleyes:

Oh well, I guess many of us get comfortable with a job and can't get our butts up and try to find a new challenge and then end up writing random stuff on automotive forums.

So, is there any progress with the Axial Flow Supercharger?? or what? :rolleyes:

So, is there any progress with the Axial Flow Supercharger?? or what? :rolleyes:

Hahaha, you troublemaker... :D

update , i want supercharger not turbo please.

Get one of his shifters for the time being (which is awesome) , cause its going to be a while yet for the SC. Just deal with it.

I thought I told you guys that we just cut some new blades last week. These are a new aerodynamic blend. This has to be done before we can do any tuning. Also we have not decided which end to bring the inlet in. I hope to assemble the compressor this week.
I could take pictures but you can't see the difference from the prior design. By eye I can't even tell the difference if I held them in my hand!

We are going to be getting our own Rx8 in the next two weeks so the fitting to the car can begin. Then I can post progressive pictures. I'm working on the electronics now so they can be developed concurently.

I still don't know about the intake manifold, if it will be replaced by a custom one.

Kyle is right, buy a shifter and wait.

Richard, I've been thinking about the inlet design/location. Part of me wants one with the front inlet/rear outlet configuration but another part of me says to keep it like it is. I guess we'll have to wait until we see one on a car to determine which is best.

Do we get to be on any preferred buyers list for the AFSC if we buy a shifter? ;)

cant wait to see this product. Good thread, almost there richard paul(98 pages)

Can we get the S/C in a different color other than chrome?

Do we get to be on any preferred buyers list for the AFSC if we buy a shifter? ;)

I thought the deal was "buy one short-shifter, get an AFSC free", no? ;)

can i get my AFSC rotors with blue LEDs in them so my hood window will glow?

Hey richard, just curious. What would happen if a foriegn object passed through the blades. Is the AFSC like a blender? I once watched a bird pass through the engine of an f-14. I was in the control tower of a naval station.. my buddy was an ATC and was giving me a tour.

you get an instant smoothie. free.

I remember seeing a video clip of some guy on an aircraft carrier go through a jet intake and out the other side. He had a helmet on, and apparently came through the other side ok.

I figure this is the right thread to ask, so, do any of you remember this clip? I remember reading that the guy survived, how would that happen?

If a hard object went through I will sell you a new compressor section. The rest of the parts will be ok. Why would something go through the blower? Where was the aircleaner? Now I'll admit it has happened, but that was with the big one with Carter carburator where someone droped a couple of jets down. In that case it took out some blades.

So don't put things in there. What supercharger can injest parts and not get hurt?

Now as to that guy on the AC, he did not go through. Because there is a tract in there he was stuck before he got to the grinder. Because they keep the inlet air subsonic it is nessasary to have some shutters or dams that change shape depending on airspeed.
I did see that film clip, very scary. Don't linger by the inlet of a running engine.

Not even Hudini could go through and come out whole. When they develop jet engines they test them for bird damage. They slingshot 2lbs frozen chickens in a running engine. It just comes out chicken patte'. Hot.

Now as to priority lists there will be a fair way of doing that, I just don't know how it is going to work. There is no freebi SC with the magic S/N shifter.

I just had an image of mice going through the compressor for some reason, so I thought I'd ask :)

It's cool that you can just slap on a new compressor section and not have to send it off to be repaired, or get a new one. (or is that the case?)

If a hard object went through I will sell you a new compressor section. The rest of the parts will be ok. Why would something go through the blower? Where was the aircleaner? Now I'll admit it has happened, but that was with the big one with Carter carburator where someone droped a couple of jets down. In that case it took out some blades.

So don't put things in there. What supercharger can injest parts and not get hurt?

Now as to that guy on the AC, he did not go through. Because there is a tract in there he was stuck before he got to the grinder. Because they keep the inlet air subsonic it is nessasary to have some shutters or dams that change shape depending on airspeed.
I did see that film clip, very scary. Don't linger by the inlet of a running engine.

Not even Hudini could go through and come out whole. When they develop jet engines they test them for bird damage. They slingshot 2lbs frozen chickens in a running engine. It just comes out chicken patte'. Hot.

Now as to priority lists there will be a fair way of doing that, I just don't know how it is going to work. There is no freebi SC with the magic S/N shifter.

For you fashion consious people we are going to anodize the center section but it will come in red only. Why? Because that is my color. The following people will get their choice of colors.

1) If you are a beautifull woman
2) If you have enough money to bribe me
3) If you are 7' 2" and weigh 340 lbs.

The compressor section is the supercharger. Everything else is just there to hold it. It's the blades that cost the money. Or more accuretly the little space between the blades.

Red is sweet.

For you fashion consious people we are going to anodize the center section but it will come in red only. Why? Because that is my color. The following people will get their choice of colors.

1) If you are a beautifull woman
2) If you have enough money to bribe me
3) If you are 7' 2" and weigh 340 lbs.

I've seen the clip with the guy who gets sucked in several times, they even interviewed him for MAX tv, His helmet was swepped off his head and stopped the engine (after what looked like an explosion and flames coming out the back) and they pulled him out the same side he went in. They showed pics of him afterwards too, he was bruised to hell with a black eye and his uniform was ripped in a bunch of places because of the high speed winds.
I want to say that he broke some bones but I don't remember if that's correct or not.

1) If you are a beautifull woman
2) If you have enough money to bribe me
3) If you are 7' 2" and weigh 340 lbs.


If I find a 7'2", 340 lbs, okay-looking woman to ask you for another color, would you consider it?

If I find a 7'2", 340 lbs, okay-looking woman to ask you for another color, would you consider it?
those would be some tig bitties.

Whatever she says. Yes, boss lady.

Hey Richard, I was wondering if you had any old dyno sheets of other engines that used this FI setup. I'm curious as to what kind of increases other cars saw. It might have been asked already but nearing 100 pages, it's daunting to have to sift through everything. If you could post some up, or even just explain why it'll be different on the rotary(I'm not sure how similar this setup would run on a piston engine). Thanks Richard.

I was hoping to push you to page 100 by asking a stupid question, but I think I will just keep my integrity and post nothing important to try to hit the 100page mark :)

I could be wrong.. but I believe that he has not developed a AFSC for any other application before this one. And is currently working on one for the 8 and for the S2000. He purchased and owned all things Latham and was maintaining that technology.
Most of that stuff is older, on older vehicles.

I just wanted to test my RP trivia =) lets see if I was close!


Hey Richard, I was wondering if you had any old dyno sheets of other engines that used this FI setup. I'm curious as to what kind of increases other cars saw. It might have been asked already but nearing 100 pages, it's daunting to have to sift through everything. If you could post some up, or even just explain why it'll be different on the rotary(I'm not sure how similar this setup would run on a piston engine). Thanks Richard.

Well I don't know if you are right, it depends on what you ment. I designed and built the Latham that I relesed in 1983. That was entirely my own design, it just used the old name. The current blower under development is also a new design but has it's roots in the '83 design. That said I have learned an awfull lot in 20 years. Plus the manufacturing method has benifited much from recent CAD/CAM advances. Also the machine tool controls have improved.

To answer the other question, I will post some test data as soon as I find it and set up my new scanner. A test by Airflow Research For Car Craft tested 4 blowers againsr each otherr all limited to 7 psi. My unit added twice what the next best blower did.
Something like 70hp vs 143hp. baseline was 320hp

I'll find a copy of it. Hymee has a copy and probably has a scanner and knows how to use it. Don't you Hymee? :)

Ahh, cool history. What vehicles were the 83 design implimented on? (you should be nearing 100!)

Well I don't know if you are right, it depends on what you ment. I designed and built the Latham that I relesed in 1983. That was entirely my own design, it just used the old name. The current blower under development is also a new design but has it's roots in the '83 design. That said I have learned an awfull lot in 20 years. Plus the manufacturing method has benifited much from recent CAD/CAM advances. Also the machine tool controls have improved.

To answer the other question, I will post some test data as soon as I find it and set up my new scanner. A test by Airflow Research For Car Craft tested 4 blowers againsr each otherr all limited to 7 psi. My unit added twice what the next best blower did.
Something like 70hp vs 143hp. baseline was 320hp

I'll find a copy of it. Hymee has a copy and probably has a scanner and knows how to use it. Don't you Hymee? :)

(you should be nearing 100!)
No, but I am sure NOW he does!

Well I don't know if you are right, it depends on what you ment. I designed and built the Latham that I relesed in 1983. That was entirely my own design, it just used the old name. The current blower under development is also a new design but has it's roots in the '83 design. That said I have learned an awfull lot in 20 years. Plus the manufacturing method has benifited much from recent CAD/CAM advances. Also the machine tool controls have improved.

To answer the other question, I will post some test data as soon as I find it and set up my new scanner. A test by Airflow Research For Car Craft tested 4 blowers againsr each otherr all limited to 7 psi. My unit added twice what the next best blower did.
Something like 70hp vs 143hp. baseline was 320hp

I'll find a copy of it. Hymee has a copy and probably has a scanner and knows how to use it. Don't you Hymee? :)
That's awesome. Come to think of it I think I remember you mentioning that. I'll wait patiently for the data, but impatiently on the climb to 100 :p

By the way I'm still interested. Hope you can figure out the ECU.

Take that Jon. :D

I have no place to set this scanner. I think I'll put it under the trash can. Which is on top of the speaker. lets see what happens after lunch.

Congrats on your 100 pages Richard. Look forward to get your short shifter, I am sure it'll be very cool! :D

To answer the other question, I will post some test data as soon as I find it and set up my new scanner. A test by Airflow Research For Car Craft tested 4 blowers againsr each otherr all limited to 7 psi. My unit added twice what the next best blower did.
Have you ever had a chance to compare it to a centrifugal supercharger? The way I understand it, the axial flow is compressor superior because it increases boost linearly and not exponentially, but how do these units actually compare at their peak efficiency?

Peak efficiency is higher with the axial flow meaning every pound of boost gives you more power. It also has the least parasitic loss of any supercharger. I know some people say this isn't possible because it takes power to make power and there definitely is a limit to how little loss you can have but some superchargers are just very hard to turn. I played with a Procharger last night at my friend's shop and that thing is crazy hard to spin.

Man I might be out of the loop just because I just now noticed this.

Grats on the little banner as well Richard

Noticed this at the bottom of the page.

http://www.rscc.com/Ads/adimage.php?filename=axialflowfooter.gif&contenttype=gif

So Richard, maybe I've missed it in all this aircraft and general chatter... ;) ... but where exactly are you with this project? Have you gotten a unit plumbed and fitted to an RX-8 yet? If so, what are you doing about engine management? And, how close are you to completing and getting this kit on the market?

I think he's still working on the SC and they are purchasing an rx8 for fitment real soon.

So Richard, maybe I've missed it in all this aircraft and general chatter... ;) ... but where exactly are you with this project? Have you gotten a unit plumbed and fitted to an RX-8 yet? If so, what are you doing about engine management? And, how close are you to completing and getting this kit on the market?

See Omi, he pays attention. I'm looking at two cars now and trying to make a deal. As soon as we have one we will start fitment. Do you have your shifter in yet? Get somefeedback on the shifter installed thread.

I was going to put the new compressor together this week but the damn week keeps going by. The blades are cut I just need to check all the clearances stage to stage and in composite. It just takes time and no one to bother me. My attention span is like that of my dog. It's ok until he thinks of something else. Or someone comes over.

I'm leaning towards the E manage as it has an optional loom for two extra injectors. It can control those separetly. I think it will be nice to keep the stock maps intact until the manifold goes positive. Then the extra nozzles can add the fuel. This will allow me to get through CARB on the stock maps, They don't go into full throttle for the epa tests. The compressor will not show upp during testing it is just spinning away with the airflow. It will not effect a thing.

My only worry is that the TB will be moved and we know how sensitive the rotary is to anything to do with the air inlet. I have my thoughts on it though. It is a learning curve that hopefully will not take to long. I'm going to instrement the car with all sorts of sensors that can record everything I can think of. It should be a rolling test lab. Gone are the days of having one guy reading each gauge and reporting it later.

My theory of homoginization is going to be tried here. It is something that no one else can take advantage of. The extra nozzles will be on the inlet side between the blower and the TB. The intake manifold might be a problem and require me to make a casting, that I don't want to. It isn't the polymer part that people are thinking, it is the location of the inlet and legnth.

It would be time consuming and expensive. Tooling costs are hard to recover on this low production kit.

If you decide to go with a rear inlet for the SC, is there any chance I will be able to use a hood scoop? If I'm gonna blow the warranty, may as well go all the way. :)

Thanks for the update, Richard. I actually have been paying attention, but like many, like to see a summary/update from time to time... it helps keep interest in this great project high too. ;)

Oh, and I hope to have time to install the RP short shifter this weekend too. You can be sure I'll post my impressions when I do! :)

Sure sounds like you're going about things the right way. Keep up the good work man, and if you get hungry, you can always snack on a Milk Bone. :D

Richard,

I just have to say something here. I think it is really commendable that you are doing this project, especially knowing that it will be a low production kit.

Not only are you actually machining your own compressor parts and building your own compressor, you're also buying a car yourself (instead of asking for guniea pigs).

I can only assume that your investment in this product is high, and will only be climbing!

So, a big Thanks from myself and others who may feel the same! I know that won't mean much till the units start selling =)

Hey, so are you buying an s2000 also?

One last thing.. Can you charge the S2000 guys more, and give us a discount ? =D

Whats the difference between rear inlet and front inlet? What is front and rear on the AFSC?

Mr. Paul, congradulations on 100 pages. Did I see in your last post that you are making this "carb" legal. If so that's great!!! I didn't know you had a short shifter. Guess I'll have to do a search for it. I'm guessing it's been getting great reviews since others are recommending it. BTW, I'd also like to say thank you for investing so much on this project. I can't wait till it's done and one of these is in my RX8. :cool:

Mr. Paul, congradulations on 100 pages. Did I see in your last post that you are making this "carb" legal. If so that's great!!! I didn't know you had a short shifter. Guess I'll have to do a search for it. I'm guessing it's been getting great reviews since others are recommending it. BTW, I'd also like to say thank you for investing so much on this project. I can't wait till it's done and one of these is in my RX8. :cool:
You should check out his website. www.axialflow.com
The shifter is supposed to be awesome and we'd all like to think this FI kit will be up to par as well. I don't remember the CARB legal thing, and I'm not too worried about it anyway. But if it is true, I'll have to find a way to change that :p

Whats the difference between rear inlet and front inlet? What is front and rear on the AFSC?
The front is the side the pulley is on.

Woohoo! 101 pages!

What diferences are caused by which direction the air flows through the inlets?

The front is the side the pulley is on.

Woohoo! 101 pages!

The low pressure side is always more critical the the high side. Therefore with the rear inlet no restriction exists. If it goes radial then we must use a facctor in the design which is called out as "duct efficency". Obviously you can use 98% for the axial rear inlet. Making it bend around costs you and the number you put in for the calcs is a guess.
Intake ports are where all the power is made on a set of heads. If it gets in it'll get out. Not saying ex doesn't count it is just easier to get working. It doesn't have to go in but it has to go out.

This is an air pump just like the engine is.

The only reason I would go to the radial inlet is to help packaging. It is not the end of the world but I'm just that anal about it.

Given the locations of the pulley and the intake manifold, it appears to the novice that to minimize bends, you want the air coming in the front and exiting the AFS to the rear to have a direct path to the intake. Placing the inlet at the rear would seem (again to the novice) to require the fresh air coming in from the front would need to be bent 180 degrees to enter the AFS, and the the boosted air coming out the front of the AFS would need to be bent 180 degrees to get to the intake.

Is the airflow restriction around the pulley's drive mechanism enough of a design factor to turn the whole AFS around? Are there other design parameters that we novices are ignorant of? Enlighten us, please?

Yes it would seem that way, BUT. The 180 degree bends are large radius. The bend inside the blower is restrictive. With the external bends it is possable to design them for very little resistance. If they must be shorter you have the option of making them shaped to help. Look at the Odulia intake pipe for a well designed turn.
In that instance it is a waste as the thing is big and the air is going to slow. Yet it was a nice try. Someone knew the theorys. It will show you what is done when space is limited and the turn must be sharp. This is an option externally. hard to do in a port.

This is bureau13's avatar. Did somebody say "Milk Bone?"

skye

...Sure sounds like you're going about things the right way. Keep up the good work man, and if you get hungry, you can always snack on a Milk Bone. :D