Cyclocharger is being tested on 328GTS

Hmmm, so what’s up with you, Mr. Mondial?
I think cyclocharger came here for some constructive criticism, And all he’s getting from you is monkeys flying out your a$$.
Others are looking at this in a constructive way, be it good idea, or maybe not so good of an idea, but constructive none the less.
Posts like yours, from a new guy to a newer guy, just perpetuate the idea that Ferrari guys are just a bunch of snobby *********s.
Maybe cyclos ideas aren’t sound, or maybe they are with some modification, but your responses, correcting his spelling, etc, are just plain childish.
Perhaps you’re just upset that it wasn’t your idea?

 

Cute animations, but I am afraid that the flow patterns from your throttle plates will not create that type of flow. If anything you will get a nonsteady mishmash of flow from the shape of the paltes and their relative angle to each other. You could get this concept CFD for a very reasonable amount of money or could make up a flow vis study using clear tubing, water and colored dye.

In either case, you would have a much better understanding of the flow field conditions downstream of the throttle plates at varying angles of attack.

As far as the restriction (pressure loss) due to a single throttle plate, your design would be worse overall and there are other solutions to that issue. Most race cars use sliding plate or barrel throttles to remove the obstruction at full throttle. At part throttle the issue is not a serious-yes it is still a restriction, but it is not a big deal.

Still-your ideas should be evaluated and your work should continue. It may have some benefits but it is not, unfortunately, that significant of a new concept to really be breaking any new ground.

 

I'd posit it the other way around; that you've got to get engineering fantasies out of your head to understand how to make money in a world that is saturated with existing throttle bodies (no offense intended).

A bigger sphere can act as though a flow resistance point wasnt' there, but you aren't going to put a bigger sphere onto existing and under-development-for-production engines.

And even if you could, why would you use the cludge of a bigger sphere to "eliminate" the center butterfly hinge flow resistance when you could simply use a superior iris shutter valve to truly get rid of it in the first place while remaining compatible with all existing throttle body sizes (i.e. no "bigger sphere" required)?!

There is a great book that every inventor should read called "The E Myth" which points out why some inventors get rich while others go broke...and the book does this in scientific fashion so that you can measure your own development processes to see which camp you are falling in to, good or bad.

At the very least it is instructive to see the myth that all of the failed inventors operated under, some of whom had extraordinarily good ideas/products.

Remember, Beta was better than VHS...Beta lost.

 

Good point. Racing throttle bodies don't have the center-hinged butterfly valve **BECAUSE THAT HINGE IS A FLOW RESTRICTION*** .

 

Dynamic flow interference is a different ballgame than static flow resistance.

Static flow resistance is not good. Racers eliminate it by using non-butterfly valves.

If you want to improve the butterfly valve, then go with a superior valve (e.g. iris shutter valve that has no such center-hinged static flow resistance).

What is your design goal? How are you moving toward that design goal?

Is your goal to have a butterfly valve with all traditional weaknesses, but that opens faster?

Because that's what splitting and counter-rotating the traditional butterfly valve flaps will get you.

Have you identified the weaknesses of the traditional throttle body? Can you itemize them and have those alleged weaknesses stand up to peer review scrutiny?

Once so identified, have you identified how to eliminate those weaknesses?

 

you've got to hand it to david to be brave enough to post up and take the constructive critisim and abuse. what remains to be seen is how much he takes in vs. tosses out. we have a very ecletic group here and most are engineers and deal with the developement and design of everything from airplanes to race cars, so it would be wise to listen.

my concern is although he was thinking outside the box for this idea, it still lacks alot of basic research. a few books on fluid dynamics would be helpfull in identifying some of the restrictions the new design has and whats he's traded for. i personally do not think that the scissor action of the plates will create the air flow he's looking for. the leading edge of the plate into the air stream will create it's own low pressure area and you'll still have the same problem. the sphere shape although in design looks neat will also create a low pressure surface and slow flow at the throttle, becouse you've increased the volume at that point it will slow down before entering the plenum. then at that point all is lost to the box shape of the plenum.

look at the old offy intakes with dual carb setups, the downdraft nature and seperate runners keep the airflow fairly clean and seperate, and thats technology from the 50's.

it's neat and inventive, however it may just be one of the learning experainces that hopefully didn't cost too much.

i'll try and explain the iris one abit better. take two tubes, the first tube will be a soft silcone material and the second tube larger in dia. will be made of a flexible nylon mesh. insert the silcone tunbe into the nylon one. now affix the one end of the nylon tube and rotate the other end 180*. the rotation will create a closing 'iris' that is a funnel at both ends. the inner tube will keep the surface free from wrinkles and disturbances. smooth non restrictive flow, if you want to indroduce vortici into the stream then you can do that with curved blades that attach to the outer walls just past the iris. you could even make the flow laminar but it would be pointless as the biggest overlooked thing is the intake valve, that creates a tumble of the air into the cylinder, so spining air in the plenum is not needed.

 

I joined FChat back in 2001.

Sorry, , nothing personal Dr. Cyclo.... (Monkey trick is in the works) ha ha

Dr., I have not insulted you, , , but, apparently I insulted your friends. (DMOOR, , JTR) Sorry dudes, , but if you can't take the heat, , , go back to Fluid Mechanics 101.

Dr. C., you joined this board for advertisement and a peer review, , and I am a peer. I'm a little rough around the edges, but lovable. And,,,,,,, when it comes to engineering,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I am right...........

Ciao,

 

This same type device placed further upstream near the filter is called the "Tornado". I think they are still advertised on late night TV. Or the various "throttle body spacers" (machined with a helix or slots) advertized in the auto enthusiast mags which claim to do the same thing. No thanks.

 

After all that has been posted, this logic still cannot escape me

 

David,
Here is why alot of us don't think there is an advantage. lets tep back and look at the system as a whole. (this is not to insult, as i'm sure you know most of this) we'll negate the CIS and go with a MAF. an engine has a volumetric effeciancy of about 75~80% and can be considered an air pump. the one resriction we do need is the throttle body in order control RPM. now from the cylinder we move out to the runners, then a plenum and onto the throttle, beyond that you'll have your meter.

from the meter to the throttle you can control the air as you whish, however once you get to the plenum it gets tricky, from there it is re-inserted and controled again by the runner. the cylinder fills by opening the valve and in tumbles the air.

thats the basics, air is introduced into the engine by atmoshperic pressure not the piston movement. the air is trying to fill the vacumm created, but becouse we have restictions it is limited, hence the VE being under 100%. air acts as a liquid in flow, every bend and and obstruction will cause disturbances. a single buterfly fly valve has one leading edge and one trailing edge that tapers off. by splitting the valve you introduce a few effects, one being the air column has to split and work past the same leading & trailing edge only now it's split and another edge at the split creating another disturbance. i'm not going to know exactly if this will create a vortex but if it did, by indroducing fuel into it, the fuel being heavier will be spun out of the air and you'd loose your mixture. the fuel and air need to be evenly mixed as possible with out low/high pressure areas. solve that and you'd have a winner.

another thing to consider, is due to the timing of an engine it's not filling one cylinder at a time. as multiple cylinders fill at varing pressures it creates another effect in the plenum. the air entering the plenum gets moved about has the pressure moves from each runner, so even if you had a perfect vortici it would be wasted the moment it reached the plenum.

i'm not sure how else to explain the proccess. but i think you still need to do some more research on fluid dynamics and engine dynamics. no offense intended just offering some critisism. i get my fair share here also, just look at my thread about FI on the CIS, not everybodys bag but i'm doing more research than i thought i would. even the design proccess on the adjustable cams we went through at least a dozen designs. CAD helped me save a fortune of R&D $$$.

it's just not solving the problem of the current throttle, just mearly trading for another.

 

Sorry Mr. Mondial, but I don't know Cyclo any more than I know you.
I have a carbed car so none of this is pertinent to me, so I'm just a guy reading an interesting concept, with some interesting feedback from other posters. Except your crap of course.
And I should ad that during my years I've met lots of 'I am right' type of guys, but none so far have lived up to their self proclaimed expertise.
Just an unscientific observation, so perhaps your engineering expertise is a little more accurate than your join date here, which is listed as 1/17/2006.
Just my 2 cents, but what's that old saw about if you have nothing constructive to say, then just,,,,,,,,,,,. So I'LL be quiet from here on out.

 

Then you don't understand your own design. Splitting one door at the center into two doors (hinged at the center), whether it is in a hallway or on a throttle body, means that each door now has a smaller arc to travel to swing open...which means that the same input will create an opening twice as fast.

Think of a long fence gate hinged at one extreme end versus two half-sized fence gates hinged at the center (or hinged at opposite ends, for that matter).

That's for one thing.

For another thing, the advantages of "organized air" are issues under debate. You've got competing goals with air intake such as overall fuel mixxing on the one hand versus volumetric compression into the cylinder on the other hand.

But what **isn't** up for debate are flow restrictions being "bad."

Well, that center hinge on a butterfly valve is a flow restriction. If you want a better throttle body, then you want to get rid of the incontravertibly bad and obvious center hinge flow restriction...there's simply no need to leave it.

You could mate your split throttle body blade idea to two outer-edge hinges, for instance, with those outer-edge hinges being near-flush, and then poof, your center hinge is no longer needed, isn't there, and suddenly you've removed a known flow restriction.

That's just like having two gates on your estate driveway entrance...they're hinged over on each side of your driveway road, and they swing open in opposite directions, so you don't have to drive around a center hinge.

Well, you don't want your air intake having to flow around a center hinge, either. You want a clear path.

The more clear your path, the faster air can flow and the faster that you can drive. Clog up a road with obstructions that you must drive around and you'll have to slow down.

So you don't want static obstructions.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Also, as a helpful financial hint, you can place your throttle body onto the end of a $150 Shop-Vac for early-stage testing.

You can then measure your flow efficiency without risking a $10,000 Ferrari engine.

If organizing air proves more efficient, then you'll know it as easily with a Shop-Vac as with a Ferrari engine.

What you'll find, however, is that max efficiency occurs when you have the least-restricted opening...whether on a throttle body or on a Shop-Vac makes no difference to the laws of physics.

 

I hate to say it, but I honestly don't understand why anyone would want one of these. It appears inferior to more conventional options in every way.

Flow restriction is irrelevant at partial throttle position as the point of the throttle is to restrict flow, that is why it’s called a throttle. This design uses more parts and requires higher precision fits to achieve equivalent throttling, making it cost more and more prone to failure....neither seem like an advantage.

At high open throttle, it has the same profile and restriction of a standard butterfly, which has a larger flow restriction than a flatslide which move completely out of the flow stream.

Sorry

 

Here's a flatside carb:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

That T-body is not going to do damn thing. Your cars system is resrtictive right from were the air enters the intake track on the right side. Follow it and note the twists and turns it has to go through, note the large restrictive airflow meter, note the tube the air must travel through, BEFORE it even reaches the t-boby!

You will LOOSE Horsepower with that thing. The stock t-body is plenty for that engine. Remember your only dealing with 3.2 liters of engine here. Your not feeding an 8.0 liter 502 bigblock! I'll bet that the stock t-body could out flow the total pumping capacity of that engine 2 times over.

If you want power out of this thing..EFI, and either a supercharger or turbo set up.

But I must give you credit for thinking outside of the box and trying somthing new..good on ya..but you must look at the ENTIRE system and how it all work together. Once you understand how it all works..then you can modify and get good results.

 

The theory behind creating an intake system is to design it so that you get the maximum air pressure in to the cylinders.

One way to do that is with a supercharger/turbocharger.

For Normally Aspirated systems, however, you've really got to concentrate on having the minimum possible pressure drop in airflow from the inlet of the throttle body to the combustion chamber...because the greater the pressure drop, the less airflow enters into the cylinder, and therefore the lower power output of the engine (all other things being equal, of course).

Well, what causes drops in pressure (e.g. length - this is why throttle bodies are placed as close as possible to the cylinders rather than in front of your air intake filter far away from the engine)?

In fact, you can look at engines and airflow speed/pressure just as electrical engineers look at circuits and voltage/current.

In an electrical circuit, every time current crosses over resistance you will get a voltage drop. Thus to maintain power over resistance drops one must up the current (this also increases heat - which is why older cars with greater resistance from corrosion tend to heat up and even burn out fuses in circuits that earlier in their lives worked fine).

Well, for your engine's air intake, every bend, every static obstruction, and the greater the length all add "resistance" to flow. Think about breathing through a straw. Now try to breath through a longer straw. Now add so many bends to the straw that it circles around itself...suddenly breathing through the straw becomes a bit more difficult!

So you want a short straw (and the fatter the better - to a point). This is why throttle bodies are mounted directly to the engine. And you don't want bends in the straw. And you don't want obstructions in the straw. You don't want rough walls, either...this is why "porting" is popular.

The more resistance to flow that you eliminate, the less your voltage drops in your electrical circuit and the less that your pressure drops in your intake plumbing "circuit."

The less that your pressure drops, the greater your power...because your pressure to the cylinder will be greater. Greater pressure equals more power (that's why superchargers work).

Now, if you are personally convinced that a vortex or tornado can supercharge more air through a particular static opening (i.e. have a greater pressure at a desired point), then you should rig up a vortex creating air blower and compare the flow that your vortex pushes through an opening to an identical air blower that simply blows straight air.

In other words, prove the concept in your "lab" before attempting to apply it to a car.

What you will probably find, however, is that a vortex has both high and low pressure zones...making it less efficient than straight air of equal pressure...but if you find otherwise then you will be on to something significant.