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

[Wonderer]

Too difficult to read.
Can you please use the review button and work on editing quotes so others can read.
The easiest way to split a post up in a quote is to put
[ / quote ] ( no spaces ) at the end of the first part, put in your comments and then
[ quote ] ( again no spaces ) at the end of your comment and the original posters text will appear as another quote box.
Would be worth going back and editing your earlier posts for clarity.
Hope that helps

I'l hold on my response till then so I dont' miss anything.

For the record, I worked in R&D for 30 years and was worldwide program manager for a leading edge multinational . .... and not only have patents but have also spent millions defending ( not me personally -- the company ) !!! "Striking early" is THE most common mistake made by new patentees

Formating has been sorted now.
There is a difference between striking early and taking your time not too strike at all. I agree that in order to make the strike you must be prepared, I am simply saying that they are taking too long. Their patents will expre in 2016 or so right? It is now 2007, by the time a manufacturer takes this on, it will take 3 years for development and testing, to get online an additional year (best case scenario) leaving less than 6 -7 years to enjoy the rewards. Not bad, but they must quicken the pace, but most importantly get the engine working right + be durable.

[CHOOK]

Thanks for clarifying your background. The 40 pages of this thread are full of idiots just coming in, putting sh!t on the engine and disappearing. It appeared that you were another one of those idiots. Maybe you should have clarified your position rather than coming in with one post and demanding answers that have already been addressed.

A couple of responses.

Chookie, I could be a potential client from any number of Hybid drivetrain companies in the Northern hemisphere for all you know. All I can say is that I have experience in this field. That is all you need to know.

Yep. Valid point. That is how all potential clients from any number of Hybid drivetrain companies in the Northern hemisphere contact a potential engine designer that they want to do business with; over the internet on a forum
For your information, the website is www.revetec.com
There you will find contact details including telephone numbers and email addresses.

This is a nonsense, review the share price history.

Maybe you should look at the history a little more closely since REVETEC first listed. Look at the share price movement as well as shares sold over the last three months. As a shareholder, I have watched closely every day since they listed and noticed every movement as well as the depth. Up to three months ago there was very little action and the share price was 4c. Thank you to those that sold That was roughly the bottom of the trough and the time things started to move slightly. It hasn't looked like anyone would get them again at that price since. Quite a few went up to 6.5c but have now retraced slightly to 5c but only the very patient have managed to get some but very few. Also remember that they are on the NSX not the ASX, so RVC are not on the major trading exchange as yet. 5c may look little to you but as I said, a $10M market cap looks fair at this stage IMO.

This is incorrect, timing has been questioned by various participants including Pneumatic, Hightower and Manolis.

This is not incorrect. Read the threads again for these particular participants.
Manolis wants REVETEC to fail. He has a competitve engine (ie. Pattakon) that he has tried to drum into anyone that wants to listen on this forum and every other auto forum on the web that his engine is the best engine design ever invented. It would be interesting to hear your comments on the Pattakon.

Pneumatic is an engineer and Hightower is a school kid who both started off rubbishing the engine but seem to be a little more patient and understanding now after Brad explained similar questions that you asked.

The one similarity to all three is that none are shareholders of RVC. They have an interest in engine designs but have criticised REVETEC without knowing the full mechanics. Brad does not have to answer to them; especially on a forum and especially not the timing of the project or potential deals. That is what AGMs and the stock exchange are used for

Now, If Brad confirmed the he has a team of people working on this and has company ABC developing component Y and company Z testing components B & C then I would feel more confident.

These are some of the the partners REVETEC have:
SKF (Bearings and Seals), Elf (Lubrication and Cooling), Recoil (Thread Inserts), Haltech (Engine Management Systems), Broens (machining), Electrosil (cylinder coatings).
Here are more details on their website http://www.revetec.com/?q=taxonomy/term/18
Brad will have to provide other details if you need more than that.

There is a difference between striking early and taking your time not too strike at all. I agree that in order to make the strike you must be prepared, I am simply saying that they are taking too long. Their patents will expre in 2016 or so right? It is now 2007, by the time a manufacturer takes this on, it will take 3 years for development and testing, to get online an additional year (best case scenario) leaving less than 6 -7 years to enjoy the rewards. Not bad, but they must quicken the pace, but most importantly get the engine working right + be durable.

Very valid point. Does it not seem to you that they are now in the final stages of getting proper independant testing and ready for production? I don't think REVETEC were just sitting back soaking up the Gold Coast sun waiting for things to happen over the past 10 years. I also don't think that they are expecting the engine to be online in 4 years. I believe they are expecting a production engine later this year or early next year. Read the thread again



.

[Matra et Alpine]

Formating has been sorted now.

Thansk W, makes it a little easier and hopefully for future conversations too.
Double thanks for the "young friend" comment, not been called young for a long long time

There is a difference between striking early and taking your time not too strike at all. I agree that in order to make the strike you must be prepared, I am simply saying that they are taking too long. Their patents will expre in 2016 or so right? It is now 2007, by the time a manufacturer takes this on, it will take 3 years for development and testing, to get online an additional year (best case scenario) leaving less than 6 -7 years to enjoy the rewards. Not bad, but they must quicken the pace, but most importantly get the engine working right + be durable.

As I understand it Reveetec are only interested in the R&D.
So how long it ultimately takes is irrelevant to their business model.
6-7 years for an engine is now considered quite long in production

10 years is nothing in the world of radical leading edge research.

"Clever" patents are expanded every 12-18 months to keep them in the unpublished categeory and further protect the future. A little unethical, but done all the time by the big boys, may Revetec are that clever - we'll never know as nobody woudl EVER answer that question

Further, to protect the future a patent HAS to ensure it also covers possible improvements and identify these in the claims. Failure to do that before publication will mean that the many IP compnaies will jump on it and identify and patent "road blocks" to control the vlaue of the original patent and charge extortionate prices for royalties/buy-out. Again, we can't say if Revetec are or aren't doing that as Brad & co woudl never answer the question if asked !!

I'd not get hung up over the timing as there's still time and manfucaturers for sure will "Buy in" very quickly if proven results are presented. Withotu all the tests Revetec are running it's asking any manufacturer to "take a punt" and that means loss of possible revenue and risk of ideas adapted without royalties It woudl be great to see it out sooner, but throwing resources and bodies at it never achieves that

[Wonderer]

[QUOTE]

Thanks for clarifying your background. The 40 pages of this thread are full of idiots just coming in, putting sh!t on the engine and disappearing. It appeared that you were another one of those idiots. Maybe you should have clarified your position rather than coming in with one post and demanding answers that have already been addressed.

Arn't YOU taking it a tad too personal Mr Chook. Just becuase I have a cooler profile name then you (Wonderer vs Chook) there is no need to get personal.

A couple of responses.

Yep. Valid point. That is how all potential clients from any number of Hybid drivetrain companies in the Northern hemisphere contact a potential engine designer that they want to do business with; over the internet on a forum
For your information, the website is www.revetec.com
There you will find contact details including telephone numbers and email addresses.

Thankfully YOU dont work for RVC otherwise this comment of yours would be taken differently. Best be careful what is said chicken/chook?

Maybe you should look at the history a little more closely since REVETEC first listed. Look at the share price movement as well as shares sold over the last three months. As a shareholder, I have watched closely every day since they listed and noticed every movement as well as the depth. Up to three months ago there was very little action and the share price was 4c. Thank you to those that sold That was roughly the bottom of the trough and the time things started to move slightly. It hasn't looked like anyone would get them again at that price since. Quite a few went up to 6.5c but have now retraced slightly to 5c but only the very patient have managed to get some but very few. Also remember that they are on the NSX not the ASX, so RVC are not on the major trading exchange as yet. 5c may look little to you but as I said, a $10M market cap looks fair at this stage IMO.

My point was that a drop from 40 cents to 5 cents is reflective of the support and respect that investors have with this company. You cant argue this.

This is not incorrect. Read the threads again for these particular participants.
Manolis wants REVETEC to fail. He has a competitve engine (ie. Pattakon) that he has tried to drum into anyone that wants to listen on this forum and every other auto forum on the web that his engine is the best engine design ever invented. It would be interesting to hear your comments on the Pattakon.

Manolis did question your ability.

Pneumatic is an engineer and Hightower is a school kid who both started off rubbishing the engine but seem to be a little more patient and understanding now after Brad explained similar questions that you asked.

Wrong, Hightower is for starters not a high school student, he says he is but I am telling you he is not. Secondly if it wasn't for Santo/Santos & Chookie & Matre then Pneumatic and Hightower would be screaming down RVC's throat.

The one similarity to all three is that none are shareholders of RVC. They have an interest in engine designs but have criticised REVETEC without knowing the full mechanics. Brad does not have to answer to them; especially on a forum and especially not the timing of the project or potential deals. That is what AGMs and the stock exchange are used for

This forum is designed for open dialogue and commentary. Any question can be asked, there are specific tech questions which Brad has failed to answer based on his excuse that he needs to keep it secret. I understand this however, my point simply is that he has taken too long to get his engine to this satge. Period.

These are some of the the partners REVETEC have:
SKF (Bearings and Seals), Elf (Lubrication and Cooling), Recoil (Thread Inserts), Haltech (Engine Management Systems), Broens (machining), Electrosil (cylinder coatings).
Here are more details on their website http://www.revetec.com/?q=taxonomy/term/18
Brad will have to provide other details if you need more than that.

Yes, the list of SUPPLIERS above is interesting, I am surprised you didn't list the newsagent and the hardware store that supply RVC with paper clips and nails. There is nothing strategic from my research.

Very valid point. Does it not seem to you that they are now in the final stages of getting proper independant testing and ready for production? I don't think REVETEC were just sitting back soaking up the Gold Coast sun waiting for things to happen over the past 10 years. I also don't think that they are expecting the engine to be online in 4 years. I believe they are expecting a production engine later this year or early next year. Read the thread again

You cant be serious, a production engine ready by the end of this year/early next year. Impossible. Unless of course the engine has already been completed, and has undergone durability testing, environmental differential testing, NVH testing etc etc. Based on what Brad has said he is nowhere near this point, so please do not speak on Brad's (?) behalf regarding engine development milestones.

[Wonderer]

QUOTE=Matra et Alpine;720027]Thansk W, makes it a little easier and hopefully for future conversations too.
Double thanks for the "young friend" comment, not been called young for a long long time
As I understand it Reveetec are only interested in the R&D.
So how long it ultimately takes is irrelevant to their business model.
6-7 years for an engine is now considered quite long in production

10 years is nothing in the world of radical leading edge research.[/QUOTE]

How long it takes it relevant becuase youu need to consider the entire value chain, you can not look at this project in isolation. Their business model must secure a manufacturing deal to make it viable, if they take an extended period of time to develop the technology then their patents will be restricted in terms of their commerciability.

Regarding the 6-7 years, you missed my point, what I mean is that 6-7 years to milk the commercial opportunity of the patents, not of one single engine design and its use. Also, most engines do have a product lifespan of 5+ years and are then handed down to 3rd tier manufacturers in India.China etc.

"Clever" patents are expanded every 12-18 months to keep them in the unpublished categeory and further protect the future. A little unethical, but done all the time by the big boys, may Revetec are that clever - we'll never know as nobody woudl EVER answer that question

Further, to protect the future a patent HAS to ensure it also covers possible improvements and identify these in the claims. Failure to do that before publication will mean that the many IP compnaies will jump on it and identify and patent "road blocks" to control the vlaue of the original patent and charge extortionate prices for royalties/buy-out. Again, we can't say if Revetec are or aren't doing that as Brad & co woudl never answer the question if asked !!

YEP!

I'd not get hung up over the timing as there's still time and manfucaturers for sure will "Buy in" very quickly if proven results are presented. Withotu all the tests Revetec are running it's asking any manufacturer to "take a punt" and that means loss of possible revenue and risk of ideas adapted without royalties It woudl be great to see it out sooner, but throwing resources and bodies at it never achieves that

[/QUOTE]

You are incorrect, timing is a big deal. Manufacturers need time to tool up for the new enginne, also there may be possible design change requirements for the vehicle given the engines unique layout and weight advanatges. Throwing resources in a R&D project like this will expedite the development procedure. He is dealing with a unique engine where currennt development software is untrained. Specialists who can study and determine the various dynamiics of this engine would speed up development. If Brad thinks he can have this engine ready by early next year then he needs to get his ass into gear because it wont happen.

[Wonderer]

Gents

Dont get me wrong, I think that this engine has serious potential. It has merit and the possibility to save the environment and act as a legitimate bridging technology before we can master hydrogen technology.
All I am saying is that RVC in my opnion are taking time and I am concerned about their resource allocation. That is all. I have had experience in this field and sometimes it takes a strong man to put his hand up and say, I require assistance here young chap.

[Matra et Alpine]

W, can you please review your posts and edit them to be quoting properly ?
These are too difficult to follwo and likely you will find folks will either be confused OR not bother reading.
Ta

Regarding the 6-7 years, you missed my point, what I mean is that 6-7 years to milk the commercial opportunity of the patents, not of one single engine design and its use. Also, most engines do have a product lifespan of 5+ years and are then handed down to 3rd tier manufacturers in India.China etc.

First, patent protection is from date of assignment NOT submission. So clever applications extend the submission to assigment date by additions Secondly a good patent protects the future new patents which provide extended life.
Engines are "handed" down to 3rd tier because they are cheap have little commercial value and therefore not carrying royalties. So you don't see leading edge engines go that route
But we agree a commercial engine life is in the 5-7 years span - which means by your own calculations, Revetec are still in the window of opportunity

You are incorrect, timing is a big deal. Manufacturers need time to tool up for the new enginne, also there may be possible design change requirements for the vehicle given the engines unique layout and weight advanatges.

Tooling for new engines is VERY easy in todays market.
I think you're confusing engine manufacture from 40 years ago.
Modern machinng and casting are all semi/fully automated and flexible.

Throwing resources in a R&D project like this will expedite the development procedure.

hmmmm that'll be a first.
Any R&D program that throughs staff at it in the later stages of developemnt NEVER makes deadlines and most of the time EXTENDS it. THe difficulty of communications guarantees failure

He is dealing with a unique engine where currennt development software is untrained. Specialists who can study and determine the various dynamiics of this engine would speed up development. If Brad thinks he can have this engine ready by early next year then he needs to get his ass into gear because it wont happen.

We'll wait and see.
Not all designs need "software" to determine the design.
Software follows experience not the other way round
From what Brad has communicated in this thread he has been referring to specialists to consult for him.

You should look at the development of racing engines and specialists to see how quickly things can come together and be manufactured. I was taken by surprise the volume and complexity that modern cnc machines can undertake in medium scale manufacturing of engines

[Wonderer]

First, patent protection is from date of assignment NOT submission. So clever applications extend the submission to assigment date by additions Secondly a good patent protects the future new patents which provide extended life.
Engines are "handed" down to 3rd tier because they are cheap have little commercial value and therefore not carrying royalties. So you don't see leading edge engines go that route
But we agree a commercial engine life is in the 5-7 years span - which means by your own calculations, Revetec are still in the window of opportunity

Engines are in fact handed down, you should review the recent acquisitions between Damiler Chrysler and various Chinese manufacturers. Trust me it happens

Tooling for new engines is VERY easy in todays market.
I think you're confusing engine manufacture from 40 years ago.
Modern machinng and casting are all semi/fully automated and flexible.

It is slightly more difficult then just flicking a switch. The key issue here is its adaptability and flexibility with current vehicle platform designs. Given the unique nature of this engine a purpose built design may be required. When I make reference to tooling I am not just making reference to an engine. I am very familiar with engine manufacturing requirements.

hmmmm that'll be a first.
Any R&D program that throughs staff at it in the later stages of developemnt NEVER makes deadlines and most of the time EXTENDS it. THe difficulty of communications guarantees failure

Not on what I have seen. They are potentially at a critical stage where testsing of stresses and thermals will be key. Remember, this is a unique design and you have to throw away your common ICE rule book away. This is all I am saying, nothing more, nothing less

We'll wait and see.
Not all designs need "software" to determine the design.
Software follows experience not the other way round
From what Brad has communicated in this thread he has been referring to specialists to consult for him.

Software is being used by RVC because they do not have 10 testing mules running concurrently to validate the dynamics of the engine. The software is playing a big role in their development (in addition to their physical testing). I don’t know what projects you have worked on but these days software can be used to simulate a host of scenarios. However, the key inputs into this technology are based on fundamental data that has been collected over the course of years and based on various ICE designs. The X4 in unique. The X4 is special and like a baby it needs to be nurtured so it can grow up and be big and strong

You should look at the development of racing engines and specialists to see how quickly things can come together and be manufactured. I was taken by surprise the volume and complexity that modern cnc machines can undertake in medium scale manufacturing of engines

[/QUOTE]

Sir, there is a significant difference between the budgets of a racing team and RVC. A racing team will have a major engine development budget and serious resources. RVC deserves all of this. I just think that they need to carefully review what needs to be done and by when.

[Matra et Alpine]

Engines are in fact handed down, you should review the recent acquisitions between Damiler Chrysler and various Chinese manufacturers. Trust me it happens

Never said it didn't.
Please read what I'd said.
The likelihood of an engine of the like of REvetec's is highly unlikely
Also the new wave of companies trying to ensure success int he quickly growing Chinese market is way differen to what BMC and Datsus et al did in India

It is slightly more difficult then just flicking a switch.

Check out all the V8 power plants coming out of the UK at the moment

The key issue here is its adaptability and flexibility with current vehicle platform designs. Given the unique nature of this engine a purpose built design may be required.

Why ?
The gearbox packaing becomes an issue, the X4 could fit in any transverse engine bay with a crown/pinion drive
And from the sizes discussed able to fit in "normal" space for many vehicles too. True if trying to fit a V10 into a 4-potter it involves more effort, but we're not looking at major voume differences here !!! Not saying that it cant' fit in to all cars, but don't see a problem for most.

When I make reference to tooling I am not just making reference to an engine. I am very familiar with engine manufacturing requirements.

WHat other tooling ? As said above, no real reason why this requries major surgery. Possibly even adaptable usign engine mount cradles. Kit car makers and builders use this technique all the time
[quote]Not on what I have seen.[quote]
Name me an R&D project you have known that added more and delivered sooner.
I can provide the shame list of hundreds over the years in a major highly professional and experienced multi-national

They are potentially at a critical stage where testsing of stresses and thermals will be key. Remember, this is a unique design and you have to throw away your common ICE rule book away. This is all I am saying, nothing more, nothing less

Thermal modelling is well advanced.
Force modelling on bearings and castings is equally well in place.
So the risks are not what they were 10 years ago even with the never-heard-of ideas
To optimise any software for what Revetec are doing will require significatn capture of the real world results to validate any model. That's why I pointed it out.

Software is being used by RVC because they do not have 10 testing mules running concurrently to validate the dynamics of the engine. The software is playing a big role in their development (in addition to their physical testing). I don’t know what projects you have worked on but these days software can be used to simulate a host of scenarios. However, the key inputs into this technology are based on fundamental data that has been collected over the course of years and based on various ICE designs. The X4 in unique. The X4 is special and like a baby it needs to be nurtured so it can grow up and be big and strong

We are in agreement.
So software isn't an answer.
Building and testing is.
Now if you build 20 equal engines to test 20 things quess what .... when you encounter a need to redesign you've just thrown out 19 test results as irrelevant as this is a closed loop system, not linear.

Sir, there is a significant difference between the budgets of a racing team and RVC. A racing team will have a major engine development budget and serious resources.

For every McLaren and Honda et al there are THOUSANDS of smaller teams and smaller developers.
Those are the ones I was referring to as comparing Brad with the hundreds and hundreds of people in Renault is silly

RVC deserves all of this. I just think that they need to carefully review what needs to be done and by when.

Agreed. "carefully review" -- not leap into action and trip up.
Brad has shareholders to answer to and I consider the progress being made is reasonable and well managed risk level. I was providing inputs to suggest why I think whilst it would be great for an engine to be ready 2 years ago, these things take time and money. Both I consider being reasonably managed at this time.

[Wonderer]

[QUOTE]

Never said it didn't.
Please read what I'd said.
The likelihood of an engine of the like of REvetec's is highly unlikely
Also the new wave of companies trying to ensure success int he quickly growing Chinese market is way differen to what BMC and Datsus et al did in India

You specifically said in the previous comment: Engines are "handed" down to 3rd tier because they are cheap have little commercial value and therefore not carrying royalties. So you don't see leading edge engines go that route. So you did say that.

Check out all the V8 power plants coming out of the UK at the moment

Compare apples to apples.

Why ?
The gearbox packaing becomes an issue, the X4 could fit in any transverse engine bay with a crown/pinion drive
And from the sizes discussed able to fit in "normal" space for many vehicles too. True if trying to fit a V10 into a 4-potter it involves more effort, but we're not looking at major voume differences here !!! Not saying that it cant' fit in to all cars, but don't see a problem for most.

Manufacturers are a tad more prcise then this. They dont just throw in a relatively samll engine in a large engine bay. Consumers dont particualrly like that.

[QUOTE]WHat other tooling ? As said above, no real reason why this requries major surgery. Possibly even adaptable usign engine mount cradles. Kit car makers and builders use this technique all the time

Not on what I have seen.Are you serious? It is not a simple stick and paste job, stop simplyfing relatively complicated engineering.

Name me an R&D project you have known that added more and delivered sooner.
I can provide the shame list of hundreds over the years in a major highly professional and experienced multi-national

My point all along is that management are taking too long. There are ways to fast track processes, I can gather from your general comments that you have worked on relatively minor projects. If OEM's like Toyota & Porsche adopted your mentality we would still be driving 16 valve twin cam engines.

Thermal modelling is well advanced.
Force modelling on bearings and castings is equally well in place.
So the risks are not what they were 10 years ago even with the never-heard-of ideas
To optimise any software for what Revetec are doing will require significatn capture of the real world results to validate any model. That's why I pointed it out.

Exactly, and how do you get these results? Let me guess you would say "abra kadabra" right?

We are in agreement.
So software isn't an answer.
Building and testing is.
Now if you build 20 equal engines to test 20 things quess what .... when you encounter a need to redesign you've just thrown out 19 test results as irrelevant as this is a closed loop system, not linear.

What the? I am not going to even bother responding to this nonsense.

Agreed. "carefully review" -- not leap into action and trip up.
Brad has shareholders to answer to and I consider the progress being made is reasonable and well managed risk level. I was providing inputs to suggest why I think whilst it would be great for an engine to be ready 2 years ago, these things take time and money. Both I consider being reasonably managed at this time.

It is a big bad world out there and there are countless numbers of technologies being developed. I am saying that he needs to quicken the pace by maximising and optimising his ability to complete the engine. He reqquires assistance and support to finnish the development of the engine in a timely fashion.

[Matra et Alpine]

Please REVIEW your posts so you get the quotes right

Made it too difficult to read and after the first comment I'm not bothered as you clearly have an agenda and aren't bothering to read and comprehend

PS: I've managed major projects involving >60 in R&D and 10 times that in production !!! Also managed 5 projects simultaneously spread over three geographic design centres with in excess of 200 engineers Of course I had project managers allocated roles in all of these. I've personally led in excess of 50 projects and further developed Quality Managemetn Systems and processes for a major multinational involving processes across R&D and production involing thousands of staff. Before retiring I was product manager responsible for world wide sales in excess of $60M PER YEAR
It doesn't pay to make assumptions Perhaps you can clarify your experience that your conclusions are based on ?

[Wonderer]

Matra et Alpine;720681]Please REVIEW your posts so you get the quotes right [/QUOTE]

Hopefully I will get it right this time, I am currently based somewhere quite remote and am having to rely on dial-up to access material. Ecah time I try to format I have cut out issues etc. I will try and improve. My apologies.

Made it too difficult to read and after the first comment I'm not bothered as you clearly have an agenda and aren't bothering to read and comprehend

We all have agendas. I am reading your comments and responding accordingly. Whethe ryou choose to accept or not is your call.

PS: I've managed major projects involving >60 in R&D and 10 times that in production !!! Also managed 5 projects simultaneously spread over three geographic design centres with in excess of 200 engineers Of course I had project managers allocated roles in all of these. I've personally led in excess of 50 projects and further developed Quality Managemetn Systems and processes for a major multinational involving processes across R&D and production involing thousands of staff. Before retiring I was product manager responsible for world wide sales in excess of $60M PER YEAR
It doesn't pay to make assumptions Perhaps you can clarify your experience that your conclusions are based on ?

[/QUOTE]


Your dossier is indeed impressive. I can't say who I am and what I do, as it will create complications. I have been in the automotive industry for over 20 years in a series of roles ranging from product management, strategy development, concept motor show vehicle development as well as a host of OEM cross platform development projects. Your $60M product management role is good to see, however it pales in significance to most major automotive product development projects (which I have worked on several). A simple tech change project will cost $80M (R&D, set-up, testing) as a minimum with sales in the vicinity of $400M plus.

I don't make assumptions.
I know stuff.
Also, Brad knows stuff and he is talented.
The X4 engine is quite amazing and I am very keen to see the results. All I said was that timing is an issue.
So, to try and end our little argument I will simply say "RVC all the best with the development of this engine, it is a remarlable piece of engineering and I cant wait for you to tell me and Hightower and Pneumatic and the whole world "I told you so"

[revetec]

Hi everyone...Wow a bit more debate. I don't really have the time to respond to it all, but I'll try to make a few things clear.

Wonderer: I think you don't appreciate the job at hand. Unlike a new camshaft or injector as such, these type of add-ons are relatively easy to develop as you have a base engine you can modify and fit these components onto.

When developing a totally new engine just about all areas of an engine has to be designed and tested. Our engine opens up development in many areas that could not have been possible with a conventional engine. This means we have to develop not only the basic design of our engine but all other aspects of the running of the engine.

Our development includes:
* Development of basic layout and variations.
* Stress analysis and rigidity testing.
* Piston acceleration development.
* Thermal development.
* Cooling systems development.
* Lubrication systems and development.
* Fuel systems. (fuel map is vastly different)
* Ignition systems. (ignition map is vastly different)
* Gas flow and breathing.
* Valve cam development.
* Emission systems.
* etc.....

All these systems have to work the same or better than current engines and fit into a standard engine bay (BTW it does). Let's say that there are 100 engine companies worldwide. The conventional engine has had over 100 years of development. This is a huge task to complete an engine that not only out performs the top conventional engines, but must also do it using less fuel and lower emissions. Only then can it be brought to market.

We are very close at this point and have two major engine manufacturers interested. We are completing our X4v2 engine which is modified to fit into a test vehicle (X4v1 being directly designed for light aircraft) so we can perform endurance testing and fuel economy testing, as well as demonstrate the characteristics to potential clients.

This was never a short term project. We must be able to demonstrate the engine in a condition that outperforms conventional engines in every way with the required reliability and life. Testing independently of all these areas takes a great deal of time and expense. Most people don't realise what it takes to get to the point we are at the moment. Everyone will need to be a little patient while we complete this phase.

Cheers
Brad



PS. I'm just about to CAD and fit the injection system on the model. Crank and cam sensors are already mounted. I'll have the injectors finalised over this week. Intake runners are the correct length for ram induction at 5,000rpm.

Also look at the Siemens UGS website link and you will notice our cylinder head in the banner graphic. Also take a look at Solid Edge Version 20 box image. or the Siemens UGS article on us. or the Design World article on us.

[Matra et Alpine]

Matra et Alpine;720681]I can't say who I am and what I do, as it will create complications.

BS

I have been in the automotive industry for over 20 years in a series of roles ranging from product management, strategy development, concept motor show vehicle development as well as a host of OEM cross platform development projects.

For those you can name names. None of that is confidential.

Your $60M product management role is good to see, however it pales in significance to most major automotive product development projects (which I have worked on several). A simple tech change project will cost $80M (R&D, set-up, testing) as a minimum with sales in the vicinity of $400M plus.

erm £60M PER YEAR
And if you're going to claim all of an orgnaisation above you as "yours" then it just gets silly. We were part of a $100BILLION sales per annum company !

I don't make assumptions.

ditto. Interviewed so many people who claimed to be "Project managers" or "business managers" and in reality were PERT chart controllers and spreadsheet operators

I know stuff.

Well it's not so clear that you know about patents and ENTREPRENEURIAL development basied on the views expressed. Again, evidence willingly accepted to back up your POV.

Also, Brad knows stuff and he is talented.
The X4 engine is quite amazing and I am very keen to see the results. All I said was that timing is an issue.

Always is. Sorry that I took your prescriptive comments to Brad and co so negatively.

So, to try and end our little argument I will simply say "RVC all the best with the development of this engine, it is a remarlable piece of engineering and I cant wait for you to tell me and Hightower and Pneumatic and the whole world "I told you so"

we've given up on ht But agreed

[Wonderer]

Wonderer: I think you don't appreciate the job at hand. Unlike a new camshaft or injector as such, these type of add-ons are relatively easy to develop as you have a base engine you can modify and fit these components onto.

I appreciate and understand the job at hand which is why I am saying that you need more assistance. You have a major task at hand that requires more resources to complete. You can't do it all by yourself.

This was never a short term project. We must be able to demonstrate the engine in a condition that outperforms conventional engines in every way with the required reliability and life. Testing independently of all these areas takes a great deal of time and expense. Most people don't realise what it takes to get to the point we are at the moment. Everyone will need to be a little patient while we complete this phase.

Brad, we are patient and we understand the task at hand. Review your resource allocation. That's all.

Also look at the Siemens UGS website link and you will notice our cylinder head in the banner graphic. Also take a look at Solid Edge Version 20 box image. or the Siemens UGS article on us. or the Design World article on us.

[/QUOTE]

Brad spend less time making these pretty pictures and more time on getting the engine completed.