A work of pure genius! - Brilliant "Revetec" Engine

[revetec]

Brad,
On page 70 of the Revetec prospectus on the NSX, It reads that an earlier/older inline-4 (I4) Revetec engine produced 925.2Nm of torque, this is verrry interesting to me as the current X4 only produces 200Nm odd.

I think that posting only that figure out of a report is misleading. The report firstly was on the CCE2003 engine model and the figure showed turning force in a model analysis at about 10 degree increments of an output shaft on a power stroke and how much torque it applied at those points. It was not a figure of what ultimately either engines could deliver in operation and did not give any RPM details because the analysis was a static one.

The figure you quoted was one figure in a table, which was also part of a conclusion of the report. The conclusion also stated that "The CCE engine is extremely well suited for high torque applications such as generators, machinery and light aircraft. It may require less gear to convert and transmit the torque and potentially reduce transmission losses in motor vehicles and trucks."

This was also the report on the initial 450cc engine before we built and tested it in the GTM trike in 2004.

All in all this is very old news and the proof is in the pudding. I noticed that Shane has posted on here, thanks for the comments on riding the X4 powered trike.

[revetec]

Has the X4 now been removed from the trike for shipment to Orbital ?[/COLOR][*] Will the independent testing as informed in a previous post be completed by the end of this month ?[/LIST]

Dear Dennis,

As a Shareholder you know that asking questions like when will the testing be completed is a question I'm no going to answer for this reason...When the testing is completed and the results certified they will be released firstly on the NSXA and then on our website. The timing and results of this event may effect share price and trading, so it is important to stick to this procedure so that no insider trading may be allowed/able to happen.

[revetec]

How did the revetec engine sound and feel being revved that high?

Well I will certainly looking forward to the results of those tests. Hopefully they will be published with the results of the same tests with the 185HP conventional engined trike?

Still I would be surprised if the actual tests showed that the revetec performs any better, except for the fuel consumption tests of course.

Oh my god...hahaha! Shane just told you that that the X4 engine out accelerated the conventional engine... You're funny......actually really really funny.

[hightower99]

Oh my god...hahaha! Shane just told you that that the X4 engine out accelerated the conventional engine... You're funny......actually really really funny.

Actually as far as I understand it niether of you have any objective evidence at all that the X4 is faster.

You have both expressed the subjective feeling that the X4 is faster and I have listened.

Niether of you have implied or said directly that you did any actual testing (i.e timing 0-60km/h times ect.) As far as I understand your judgement is solely based on subjective feeling.

The conditions of the X4 vs. conventional engine reminds me of several discussions (not on an interenet forum) about diesel vs. petrol cars. Diesel engines produce alot of torque at low RPM but normally produce significantly less peak power then the petrol equivalents. The discussions usually start with people saying that the diesel feels faster and try to explain it by pointing out the much greater low end torque. However so far all of the discussions I have been in have ended with the petrol engine producing faster times when empirical evidence is brought forth.

I have no doubt that the X4 feels faster and is able to bolt off the line hard (even at low throttle) However I seriously doubt that it can out accelerate an otherwise completely identicle trike which has twice the power.

[GTM]

BMW X5 - 3.0si - Petrol
Capacity: 2996cc - Inline 4 Cylinder
Engine Max Output: 200kw / 6650rpm
Engine Max Torque: 315nm / 2750rpm

Final Drive Ratio: 4.44:1

Topspeed: 210km/h
Acceleration 0-100km/h 8.1s

Urban fuel consumption: 13.7L / 100km/h

---

BMW X5 - 3.0d - Diesel
Capacity: 2993cc - Inline 4 Cylinder
Engine Max Output: 173kw / 4000rpm
Engine Max Torque: 520nm / 2000-2750rpm

Final Drive Ratio: 3.64:1

Topspeed: 210km/h
Acceleration 0-100km/h 8.1s

Urban fuel consumption: 10.2L / 100km/h


*Petrol model produces 15.6% more power over diesel model.
*Petrol model produces 40.5% less torque over diesel model.

*Petrol model differential is geared up 22% over diesel model.

*Petrol model uses 34.3% more fuel over the diesel model (urban).

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------

BMW X5 - 4.8i - Petrol
Capacity: 4799cc - V 8 Cylinder
Engine Max Output: 261kw / 6300rpm
Engine Max Torque: 475nm / 3400-3800rpm

Final Drive Ratio: 3.91:1

Topspeed: 240km/h
Acceleration 0-100km/h 6.5s

Urban fuel consumption: 16.9L / 100km/h

---

BMW X5 - 3.0sd - Diesel
Capacity: 2993cc
Engine Max Output: 210kw / 4400rpm
Engine Max Torque: 580nm / 1750-2250rpm

Final Drive Ratio: 3.64:1

Topspeed: 235km/h
Acceleration 0-100km/h 7.0s

Urban fuel consumption: 10.3L / 100km/h


*Petrol model produces 24.3% more power over diesel model.
*Petrol model produces 18.1% less torque over diesel model.

*Petrol model differential is geared up 7% over diesel model.

*Petrol model uses 64% more fuel over the diesel model (urban).

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------

ALL Models have the same transmission, same size tyres.
The diesel varients are all heavier than the petrol models.

Please note both petrol varients have higher ratio final drives to improve acceleration. Petrol varients have higher fuel consumption. But the end results show an engine with lower power output, but higher torque can still perform at a similar level to higher power/lower torque engines.

Specifications taken from:
BMW X5 : Introduction

[revetec]

A have no doubt that the X4 feels faster and is able to bolt off the line hard (even at low throttle) However I seriously doubt that it can out accelerate an otherwise completely identicle trike which has twice the power.

OK Hightower99, you'll never believe it, even though I have someone on the forum who has driven it and has come here to tell you how it performs. Remember also that with a flat torque curve the acceleration keeps almost constant as the revs increase. If you want to now compare apples with apples, can you now imagine the 95hp X4v2 engine against a 95hp conventional engine.

[revetec]

I'll also make a comment about the test day. GTM trike executives took it very easy in driving the trike due to its first time on the road. It looks on the videos that we were giving the throttle a good opening to show performance, but the throttle was not opened over 25% throttle and there was no need to. Shane asked to see the throttle opening to make sure that it was only a quarter, and looked down the throttle body while operating the accelerator to confirm it. After certification we will then open it up to full throttle and perform some 0-100kph figures.

[hightower99]

OK Hightower99, you'll never believe it, even though I have someone on the forum who has driven it and has come here to tell you how it performs. Remember also that with a flat torque curve the acceleration keeps almost constant as the revs increase. If you want to now compare apples with apples, can you now imagine the 95hp X4v2 engine against a 95hp conventional engine.

First I will believe it when I see the actual objective evidence (that will hopefully be released relatively quickly after it is actually performed).

Why am I supposed to believe you anyways? you have driven the X4 powered trike but you didn't run it against the conventional trike, you also did not do any sort of actual testing, you are asking me to believe you when all you are giving me is "seat of the pants" feeling and unfortunately the math doesn't add up.

Second a flat torque curve does not allow constant acceleration (no not even almost constant either). The forces that need to be overcome increase exponentially with speed not linearly (i.e 2,4,8,16 not 2,4,6,8).

Also about your apples to apples comment: a 95HP conventional engine is ridiculously tiny. Suzuki has been making 110HP with their 600cc I4 engines since 2006. That would be an interesting battle: the 4000RPM X4V2 vs the 16000RPM Suzuki R600 engine. remember that to be apples to apples the trike that has the suzuki engine should have an overall gear ratio (transmission ratio times differential ratio) that is 4 times larger than what ever the revetec powered trike is using (that will keep in gear speeds constant and make sure that it is really an apples to apples comparison).

And to GTM:

Your comparisons of the BMW X5s do not surprise me at all. The whole story cannot be told from just peak values. Wonder why the seemingly more powerfull petrol engine X5 (3.0i) accelerates just as fast as the seemingly less powerfull diesel engined variant? the simple answer is that they make roughly the same average power over their respective in gear RPM bands. (alittle correction they use Inline 6 cylinder engines not 4 cylinder engines). However lets look at the interesting one. The 4.8i vs 3.0sd shows that even when the difference in peak power is less than 25% and when there is a relatively large difference in peak torque (petrol makes 18% less) that the petrol is able to out accelerate the diesel. Yet you want me to believe that when the difference in peak power is more than 100% ( more than 4 times the difference) and when the petrol engine makes 8% more peak torque (220Nm vs 202Nm) that it somehow loses against the X4?

Really do just alittle math and it looks highly unlikely.

Again I believe that the revetec engine can give a real good initial kick in the pants but it cannot out accelerate a petrol engine that makes 185HP when it only makes 92HP.

[hightower99]

I'll also make a comment about the test day. GTM trike executives took it very easy in driving the trike due to its first time on the road. It looks on the videos that we were giving the throttle a good opening to show performance, but the throttle was not opened over 25% throttle and there was no need to. Shane asked to see the throttle opening to make sure that it was only a quarter, and looked down the throttle body while operating the accelerator to confirm it. After certification we will then open it up to full throttle and perform some 0-100kph figures.

A simple visual check does not confirm that you have a correctly sized throttle. If you are achieving close to 100% of the peak VE of your engine at only 10% throttle then it is way too big.

What sort of testing, theory, guesses did you use to determine the correct throttle size?

[GTM]

Yes, I stand corrected hightower the X5 3.0's are inline 6's not 4's.

With regards to our market, we are not obsessed with achieveing maximum outright top speed. When we desgn our trikes we set a maximum top speed, this has ranged from 140km/h through to 180km/h as our models and power plant evolved. As our trikes have full DOT approval, this max top speed is referenced throughout our vehicle testing, for example our braking system etc. and has an impact on various systems of the trike.

My point is, our customers have never been concerned about the outright top speed of the trike, so producing a trike that will do (for example) 250km/h has not been our priority. The consistent comment from customer's is that they will never operate the trike at that speed so they put very little value on the trikes top speed if it is in excess of 140 km/h. What they are concerned with is acceleration (and throttle response), pulling power for the hills and fuel efficency. That is just what our customers want, I'm sure this is different to the customer buying a sports car etc. For us the Revetec X4 will meet our customers criteria. The current slated top speed fo the Revetec X4 in the trike is 180km/h, based on Revetec's internal dyno results.

[Matra et Alpine]

Second a flat torque curve does not allow constant acceleration (no not even almost constant either). The forces that need to be overcome increase exponentially with speed not linearly (i.e 2,4,8,16 not 2,4,6,8).

You care to run the math on that on first, second and third order at low speeds ? You'll have that opinion altered

[revetec]

Also about your apples to apples comment: a 95HP conventional engine is ridiculously tiny. Suzuki has been making 110HP with their 600cc I4 engines since 2006. That would be an interesting battle: the 4000RPM X4V2 vs the 16000RPM Suzuki R600 engine.

Firstly I will remind you that this engine is set-up for an aircraft engine and sports a very mild valve cam grind.

A 600cc engine doing 16,000rpm at peak power of 110hp if we look at the amount of volume it is sweeping is 4,800litres per minute of intake charge.

Our engine doing 3,500rpm at peak power of 95hp is sweeping 4,200litres per minute of intake charge.

Given the higher horsepower of the 600cc engine at 16,000rpm and we scale it down by 13% to 95hp, we can say that we are producing about the same outright horsepower per the same swept volume.

Now we are using 2 valves per cylinder and quite an antiquated top end we can pretty much say that we have achieved the same power per volume of air being consumed using a far less technical top end while delivering higher torque and efficiency in the lower rev range.

Given the increase in top end technology and breathing we will only improve on this figure, and we have done this on a fraction of the budget of the major companies. And given the high torque in the lower rpm range and an almost straight line power curve from 1,200rpm to 3,000rpm (with the aircraft cam set-up which is mild) we can short shift the engine into a high torque range which reduces fuel consumption greatly.

Go on admit it. Per amount of volume of air being inducted we have achieved about the same power as this top end type of engine. It only gets better from here.

As a further note: Our engine excels at the light throttle low RPM range by way of torque application earlier in the stroke. This is what all the car companies are looking for, and the market trend....ECONOMY

Also note that we have the same torque figure just above idle as the point of maximum power. The R600 engine in the lower RPM range has about 30% less torque than at the point of it's peak power.

[3yearsharehold]

REVETEC
The raptor sold the same pitch to many rev holders, I did ask him several times if he was sure of this number and he replied. "when I was helping market there motor at darling harbour I Quoted the revetec motor to every person that came to are stand of the 925nm torque, nor Brad or any other rvc representatives batter a eye lid"

"GTM
POST 823 The top speed on the test day was around 100km/h (Engine speed approx. 2,700rpm - 4th gear).
GTM
POST 835 The current slated top speed fo the Revetec X4 in the trike is 180km/h, based on Revetec's internal dyno results."

So, GTM do you think the trike could of achieved 80% more speed with the last 1300 rpm ? or do you have a 6,7 speed gear box?
Also I must say I am very surprised you have posted this and not Revetec.

[revetec]

REVETEC
The raptor sold the same pitch to many rev holders, I did ask him several times if he was sure of this number and he replied. "when I was helping market there motor at darling harbour I Quoted the revetec motor to every person that came to are stand of the 925nm torque, nor Brad or any other rvc representatives batter a eye lid"

I was and have been always clear on the report given by the analysis performed by Leap Australia. The peak transfer through the power stroke is 925Nm of transfer at 8 degrees ATDC on the trilobe on the 450cc engine. The analysis is quite clear in the prospectus and any other literature the company has put out. There was also a benchmark comparison performed to a conventional engine given in the analysis which was compared to 30degrees ATDC on a conventional engine. All engines have to complete four cycles which include induction, compression, power and exhaust. There are losses during the other strokes like pumping losses such on the compression stroke and frictional losses etc. The losses are the same for any engine. All that was analyzed was the power stroke at various degree points.

The report clearly states that it is an analysis given at certain degrees of rotation of an engine model and not a running engine. Both our 450cc and the conventional engine graphed were under the same situation. Another thing to note that the report clearly stated that the engine analyzed in the report was a slow running engine (taken off the main shaft as per our current design at the time) and would need to be geared up for automotive use (which we have been doing on the last three engine prototypes since 2004).

I did not hear any of your comments at the show and I would have corrected you if I had. Did you at any stage ask me about any figures or info you were quoting? I asked everyone on the stand to refer any technical questions to myself. And can you remember any time I was free to listen in to any conversation or statements, without correcting any inaccuracies? Did you ask me any questions regarding any information you were not clear on?

Thank you everyone for the help given at shows when we needed it but now you have brought this to my attention it is a good reason not to have any non-employee helping at any shows anymore (which from now on we will not have) and thank you for informing me of both of your lack of knowledge in this area, as without full knowledge of the product there will always be inaccuracies from helpers that do not fully understand the technology. This is also why independent testing and certification is necessary before we release BSFC figures. I don't want anyone quoting anything other than information within the certified testing report and/or in its entirety.

Anyway there is no damage done as it is said in the prospectus upon purchasing shares that you must read the whole prospectus and seek advise. Before investing a person would do so, and read the report in full as per the advise given, and it would be quite clear what the Leap Australia report is analyzing. Please don't quote just one figure without explaining fully what you are quoting.

[GTM]

3yearshareholder - We have recently completed a deal with Shanghai Auto Gearworks who are supplying us with new 5 speed transmissions to replace our current 4-speed unit. We received the first sample unit in our Cairns workshop before christmas and it is being tested now. This unit will reach 100km/h at 2100 rpm engine speed - 5th gear. The final ratio's were determined with the X4 in mind. We are absolutely committed to the Revetec X4 in our trikes.

The specifications we have requested for our version of the X4 will have a redline of 6,000 rpm.

New transaxle ratio's are:
Gear Shift 1: 3.455
Gear Shift 2: 1.944
Gear Shift 3: 1.286
Gear Shift 4: 0.909
Gear Shift 5: 0.684

Reverse Gear: 3.167

Differential: 4.111

Picture of our new transmission model:


Future version to be fitted with AMTF (automated manual transmission) with automatic drive option, F1 gear shift, throttle-by-wire and electronic clutch.